Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • U
  • United Public Workers v. MitchellUnited Public Workers v. Mitchell
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

United Public Workers v. Mitchell

United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 75 (1947)



The Hatch Act made it unlawful for federal executive-branch officers and employees to take "any active part in political management or political campaigns." The penalty for a violation of this provision of the Hatch Act was dismissal from employment. George Poole and other federal employees, including members of the federal executive civil service and the United Public Workers of America labor union (plaintiffs), brought an action in federal district court against members of the United States Civil Service Commission (defendants). The plaintiffs sought equitable relief including a declaratory judgment that the Hatch Act's prohibition on active involvement in political management or campaigns was unconstitutional. Of the plaintiffs, only Poole had violated the Hatch Act at the time of the action. Poole was a local committeeman in a political party and worked at the polls on Election Day; there was a proposed order for Poole's removal from his position at the U.S. Mint based on his Hatch Act violation. None of the other plaintiffs had violated the Hatch Act at the time of the action, but they claimed that they wished to do so by, for example, serving as local party officials or writing articles in support of political candidates. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of a justiciable case or controversy, but a three-judge panel of the district court found that the plaintiffs' interest in engaging in political activities was sufficient to allow them to maintain the action. However, the panel found that the challenged portion of the Hatch Act was constitutional and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)

Dissent (Black, J.)

Dissent (Douglas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial