KEYISHIAN v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Legal Principle at Issue

Are the provisions of New York's Civil Service Law requiring public servants to formally renounce Communism so overly broad and vague that they are unconstitutional?

Action

The Court ruled in favor of the employees and held that "§ 3021 of the Education Law and subdivisions 1 (a), 1 (b) and 3 of § 105 of the Civil Service Law as implemented by the machinery created pursuant to § 3022 of the Education Law are unconstitutional."
 

Facts/Syllabus

George Hochfield, Ralph Maud, Harry Keyishian, and Newton Garver were members of the faculty of the privately owned and operated University of Buffalo, and became state employees when the University was merged in 1962 into the State University of New York, an institution of higher education owned and operated by the State of New York. As faculty members of the State University their continued employment was conditioned upon their compliance with New York's teacher loyalty laws, which the State utilizes to prevent the appointment or retention of "subversive" persons in state employment. 

Their continued employment had been terminated or was threatened when each appellant faculty member refused to comply with a requirement of the University trustees that he certify that he was not a Communist and that, if he had ever been one, he had so advised the university president, and the non-faculty employee refused to state under oath whether he had advocated or been a member of a group which advocated forceful overthrow of the government. Each was notified that failure to sign the certificate would require dismissal. Keyishian's one-year-term contract was not renewed because of his failure to sign the certificate. Hochfield and Garver, whose contracts still had time to run, continue to teach, but subject to proceedings for their dismissal if the constitutionality of the New York plan is sustained. Maud has voluntarily resigned and therefore no longer has standing in this suit.

Appellants brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that New York's teacher loyalty laws and regulations are unconstitutional.