426 U.S. 88 (1976)
Five Chinese aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence brought this litigation after each was denied federal employment solely because of alienage.1 Mow Sun Wong, admitted in 1969 after working as an electrical engineer in China, participated in the California Supplemental Training and Education Program and was assigned to the General Services Administration but could not obtain a janitor position.2 Siu Hung Mok, admitted in 1968 with eighteen years of business experience in China, likewise participated in the STEP program and was assigned to the Federal Records Center of GSA but could not retain a file clerk position.3 Kae Cheong Lui performed satisfactory work for the Post Office Department for ten days before termination when his personnel record showed he was not a citizen.4 Francene Lum, admitted in 1946 with fifteen years of teaching experience and a master's degree in education, was not permitted to take an examination for an evaluator position in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.5 Anna Yu, admitted in 1965, was barred from taking a typing test for a clerk-typist position.6
Two of the plaintiffs had filed declarations of intent to become citizens while the other three had not.7 On December 22, 1970, the five plaintiffs commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission and the heads of the three agencies that had denied them employment.8 The complaint alleged that approximately four million aliens reside in the United States, that about three hundred thousand federal jobs become available each year, and that noncitizens are generally barred from competing for those positions.9
The District Court rejected a jurisdictional challenge but ruled for the defendants on the merits after defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment supported by affidavits.10 Four plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.11 While the appeal was pending for over two years, the Supreme Court decided Sugarman v. Dougall and In re Griffiths on June 25, 1973.12 The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court judgment.13
Only the Chairman and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission petitioned for certiorari.14 In 1971 Congress established the United States Postal Service and removed its officers and employees from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.15 In 1974 the Postal Service amended its regulation to make noncitizens who have permanent resident alien status eligible for most positions.16 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Civil Service Commission regulation barring resident aliens from federal competitive civil service employment is constitutional.17
The regulation at issue, 5 CFR § 338.101, provided that a person may be admitted to competitive examination or given appointment only if a citizen of or owing permanent allegiance to the United States, with limited exceptions for executive assignments when no qualified citizens are available.18 The Commission construed the permanent allegiance category to cover only natives of American Samoa.19
Whether a regulation of the United States Civil Service Commission that bars resident aliens from employment in the federal competitive civil service is constitutional?20
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment imposes requirements on federal rules that discriminate against aliens.21 When the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest as justification for a discriminatory rule that would violate equal protection if adopted by a state, due process requires a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest.22 If the agency promulgating the rule has direct responsibility for the interest, the presumption holds.23 If the rule is expressly mandated by Congress or the President, any rational interest may be presumed to have motivated it.24
No. The Civil Service Commission regulation at issue, 5 CFR § 338.101, excludes aliens from competitive civil service positions.25
The Commission has responsibility only for promoting the efficiency of the federal service and lacks authority over foreign affairs, treaty negotiations, or immigration policy.26 The history of the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 shows that Congress did not mandate the citizenship requirement. Executive Orders, including President Eisenhower's in 1954, authorized the Commission to establish standards but did not require the broad exclusion.27 The Postal Service later removed the requirement without direction from Congress or the President.28
The asserted interests in treaty negotiations, encouraging naturalization, and administrative convenience are not within the Commission's proper concerns. The rule was not adopted with any considered evaluation by the Commission of those interests.29 The Civil Service Commission rule deprives its members of an aspect of liberty by broadly denying this class substantial opportunities for employment.30
The regulation deprives the respondents of an interest in liberty without due process of law and is therefore invalid.31
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan joined the Court's opinion with the understanding that equal protection questions raised by congressional or Presidential enactment of a bar on employment of aliens by the Federal Government are reserved.32 This concurrence highlights the limited scope of the holding, which addresses only the Civil Service Commission's regulation.33
Joined by The Chief Justice, Justice White, And Justice Blackmun
Justice Rehnquist dissented on the ground that the Court enunciated a novel conception of procedural due process.34 He argued that the power of the federal courts is severely limited in the areas of immigration and regulation of aliens.35 The Court improperly engrafted due process requirements onto delegation doctrine.36
A decision to exclude aliens from the civil service is a political decision reserved to Congress and the President and is immune from judicial scrutiny even when delegated to the Civil Service Commission.37 He would have reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.38