Molina-Crespo v. U.S.

3 Citing briefs

  1. In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    Rather, the more apt comparison is the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1502, 7323, which forbids all but a handful of federal employees and covered state employees from campaigning for or holding elected office.3 The Hatch Act ban has repeatedly survived First Amendment scrutiny. See, e.g., Molina- Crespo, 547 F.3d at 658; McEntee v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot.

  2. In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    ees’ on pages 13, 15-16 of their brief not already addressed by Appellants in their initial brief, are inapposite, as, where these cases are actually conducting federal constitutional analyses, they involve challenges to government actions based on law, rules, and/or regulations, as compared to the unilateral, internal actions of an executive agency on its own initiate and/or involve narrower prohibitions of partisan political activity, often for elected or judicial officials and employees. See, Boyle v. Kirwin, 39 A.D.2d 993 (3d Dep’t 1972) (involving challenge to lawfully-enacted regulation preventing State Police from holding public or appointed office); Matter of Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354 (1979) 8 (involving Article 78 review of a police officer’s termination for violating a work rule prohibiting him from using his position as a police officer to aid or hinder a political entity) (emphasis added); Merle v. U.S., 351 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 2003) (involving a Hatch Act challenge); Molina-Crespo v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd, 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008) (involving a Hatch Act challenge as applied to agency director); Golden v. Clark, 76 N.Y.2d 618 (1990) (involving charter provision adopted by voters of New York, which prohibited high-level officers from holding political party office); In re Belle v. Town of Onondaga, 61 A.D.2d 352 (4th Dep’t 1978) (involving Board legislation prohibiting town officers and employees from holding political party office); Phillips v. City of Dallas, 781 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2015) (involving city charter provisions preventing city employees from simultaneously seeking office in county overlapping city); Kane v. City of Albuquerque, 358 P.3d 249 (N.M. 2015) (involving city regulations prohibiting city employees from holding elective office); Whitehouse v. Moran, 808 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2002) (involving application of statute that prohibited town teacher/State employee from serving on board of canvassers); Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St. 3d 377 (1994) (involving candidate for partisan political office and applic

  3. In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed August 29, 2018

    Nevertheless, courts have routinely held that the Hatch Act is constitutional. See, e.g., Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 556; Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616-18 (1973); Molina-Crespo, 547 F.3d at 658; McEntee v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot.