5 U.S.C. § 7324

Political activities on duty; prohibition

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An employee may not engage in political activity—(1) while the employee is on duty;(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;(3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or(4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.(b)(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employee—(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and(B) who is—(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.(Added Pub. L. 103–94, § 2(a), Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1003.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7324, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 525; Pub. L. 93–268, § 4(a), Apr. 17, 1974, 88 Stat. 87, prohibited Executive agency employees and employees of the District of Columbia from influencing elections or taking part in political campaigns, prior to the general revision of this subchapter by Pub. L. 103–94.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 118 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: United States Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973). · cites it 14× “1058 , based on a jurisdictional statement presenting the single question whether the prohibition in § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act, now codified in 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a) (2), against federal employees taking "an active part in political management or in political campaigns," is…”

United States v. Nat'l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). · cites it 4× “In Mitchell we upheld the prohibition of the Hatch Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a)(2), on partisan political activity by all classified federal employees, including, for example, a skilled mechanic *471 at the mint named Poole who had no policy making authority.”

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973). · cites it 4× “Appellants' claims are, of course, similar to the vagueness and overbreadth contentions rejected by the Court today in upholding § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a) (2). See Letter Carriers, supra .”

Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 346 F. Supp. 578 (D.D.C. 1972). · cites it 19× “OPINION AND ORDER GESELL, District Judge: The National Association of Letter Carriers and six federal employees have brought this class action on behalf of all federal employees seeking a declaratory judgment that 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (a) (2), the provision of the so-called Hatch Act…”

Tom Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & United States, Intervenor, 331 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (c) (1970). Starting in the mid-seventies, several attempts were made to relax the Act’s prohibitions generally.”

Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982). · cites it 2× “In United Public Workers , the Court upheld § 9(a) of the Hatch Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7324 (a)(2), which prohibits certain federal civil service employees from taking "an active part in political management or political campaigns.”

Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984). · cites it 2× “15, 1981); Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Oct.”

Minnesota Voters All. v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876 (2018). “2d 796 (1973) (rejecting First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness challenge to § 9(a) of the Hatch Act, then codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (a)(2), which prohibited federal employees from taking " 'an active part in political management or in political campaigns' "); Broadrick v.”

Kenneth T. Blaylock v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 851 F.2d 1348 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 8× “KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: Kenneth Blaylock petitions this court for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) finding him in violation of the Hatch Political Activities Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (a)(2) (Hatch Act). See Special Counsel v.”

Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “2880 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 7324 (a)(2) (1973)). It *24 is difficult to see why the term “actively participates” is cripplingly vague in a statute that merely mandates disclosure, while “taking an active part” was acceptable in a statute that directly limited speech.”

Hipolito Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Nicholas Munoz Munoz, Exec. Dir. of A.D.T., 808 F.2d 138 (1st Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 7324 (a) (1982); see generally Developments in the Law —Public Employment, 97 Harv.”

Martin v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 38 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “121 (3), prohibited " [d]irectly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, collecting, handling, disbursing, or accounting for assessments, contributions, or other funds for a partisan political purpose." (Emphasis added.) In Broadrick v.”

Show all 118 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.