441 U.S. 68 (1979)
New York Education Law § 3001(3) forbids certification as a public school teacher of any person who is not a citizen of the United States, unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship.1 The Commissioner of Education is authorized to create exemptions from this prohibition, and has done so with respect to aliens who are not yet eligible for citizenship.2 Unless a teacher obtains certification, he may not work in a public elementary or secondary school in New York.3
Appellee Norwick was born in Scotland and is a subject of Great Britain.4 She has resided in this country since 1965 and is married to a United States citizen.5 Appellee Dachinger is a Finnish subject who came to this country in 1966 and also is married to a United States citizen.6 Both Norwick and Dachinger currently meet all of the educational requirements New York has set for certification as a public school teacher, but they consistently have refused to seek citizenship in spite of their eligibility to do so.7 Norwick applied in 1973 for a teaching certificate covering nursery school through sixth grade, and Dachinger sought a certificate covering the same grades in 1975.8 Both applications were denied because of appellees' failure to meet the requirements of § 3001(3).9 Norwick then filed this suit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of § 3001(3), and Dachinger obtained leave to intervene as a plaintiff.10
A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.).11 Applying the close judicial scrutiny standard of Graham v. Richardson, the court held that § 3001(3) discriminated against aliens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.12 The court believed that the statute was overbroad, because it excluded all resident aliens from all teaching jobs regardless of the subject sought to be taught, the alien's nationality, the nature of the alien's relationship to this country, and the alien's willingness to substitute some other sign of loyalty to this Nation's political values, such as an oath of allegiance.13 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction over the state school officials' appeal.14
Whether a State, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may refuse to employ as elementary and secondary school teachers aliens who are eligible for United States citizenship but who refuse to seek naturalization?15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, dissented. He maintained that teaching at the elementary and secondary levels does not fall within the narrow exception for important nonelective positions that participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy, as recognized in Foley and Sugarman.16 The New York statute is all-inclusive and irrational because it would bar a highly qualified resident alien while permitting a less qualified citizen, and no logical distinction exists between this case and In re Griffiths, where aliens could not be barred from the practice of law.17
The statute's own exceptions for certain aliens and the permission for aliens to serve on school boards further demonstrate that the citizenship line is shallow and indistinct. The District Court's observation that the exclusion seems repugnant to the heritage the State seeks to inculcate captures the constitutional flaw.