Broadrick v. Oklahoma
- Decided
- June 25, 1973
- Docket
- 71-1639
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,338 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Butler
What later courts said
- holding that applying overbreadth analysis constitutes manifestly strong medicine that is to be employed sparingly and only as a last resort — Ruiz v. Hull (1998)
- holding that an impermissibly vague enactment is one that is so indeterminate that persons “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning” — People v. Graves (2016)
- holding that unless a statute is substantially overbroad, overbreadth can be handled on a case-by-case basis — Brazil-Breashears v. Bilandic (1995)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Me. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 818 of Oklahoma’s Merit System of Personnel Administration Act, Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 74, § 801 et seq., restricts the political activities of the State’s classified civil servants in much the same manner that the Hatch Act proscribes partisan political activities of federal employees. Three employees of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission who are subject to the proscriptions of § 818 seek to have two of its paragraphs declared unconstitutional on their face and enjoined because of asserted vagueness and overbreadth. After a hearing, the District Court upheld the provisions and denied relief. 338 F. Supp. 711. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal, 409 U. S. 1058, so that appellants’ claims could be considered together with those of their federal counterparts in CSC v. Letter Carriers, ante, p. 548. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
[*603] Section 818 was enacted in 1959 when the State first established its Merit System of Personnel Administration.[1] The section serves roughly the same function as [*604] the analogous provisions of the other 49 States,[2] and is patterned on § 9 (a) of the Hatch Act.[3] Without question, a broad range of political activities and con [*605] duct is proscribed by the section. Paragraph six, one of the contested portions, provides that “[n]o employee in the classified service . . . shall, directly or indirectly, [*606] solicit, receive, or in any manner be concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment ... or contribution for any political organization, candidacy or other political purpose.” Paragraph seven, the other challenged paragraph, provides that no such employee “shall be a member of any national, state or local committee of a political party, or an officer or member of a committee of a partisan political club, or a candidate for nomination or election to any paid public office.” That paragraph further prohibits such employees from “tak[ing] part in the management or affairs of any political party or in any political campaign, except to exercise his right as a citizen privately to express his opinion and to cast his vote.” As a complementary proscription (not challenged in this lawsuit) the first paragraph prohibits any person from “in any way” being “favored or discriminated against with respect to employment in the classified service because of his political . . . opinions or affiliations.” Responsibility for maintaining and enforcing § 818’s proscriptions is vested in the State Personnel Board and the State Personnel Director, who is appointed by the Board. Violation of § 818 results in dismissal from employment and possible criminal sanctions and limited state employment ineligibility. Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 74, §§ 818 and 819.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.