The Supreme Court ruled that the commanding officer was authorized to deny the civilian petitioner access to the naval installation based on security regulations and the historical power of commanding officers to exclude civilians. Additionally, the petitioner did not have a constitutional right to work at that specific military installation. The Court also held that the petitioner's due process rights under the 5th Amendment were not violated when her identification badge was revoked without being provided the specific grounds or a hearing, as government employment can be denied without due process protections. The dissenting justices argued that if the dismissal was due to discrimination, due process would be required, and labeling the petitioner a security risk without a hearing was unfair.
The Supreme Court ruled that the commanding officer was authorized to deny the civilian petitioner access to the naval installation based on security regulations and the historical power of commanding officers to exclude civilians. Additionally, the petitioner did not have a constitutional right to work at that specific military installation. The Court also held that the petitioner's due process rights under the 5th Amendment were not violated when her identification badge was revoked without being provided the specific grounds or a hearing, as government employment can be denied without due process protections. The dissenting justices argued that if the dismissal was due to discrimination, due process would be required, and labeling the petitioner a security risk without a hearing was unfair.
The Supreme Court ruled that the commanding officer was authorized to deny the civilian petitioner access to the naval installation based on security regulations and the historical power of commanding officers to exclude civilians. Additionally, the petitioner did not have a constitutional right to work at that specific military installation. The Court also held that the petitioner's due process rights under the 5th Amendment were not violated when her identification badge was revoked without being provided the specific grounds or a hearing, as government employment can be denied without due process protections. The dissenting justices argued that if the dismissal was due to discrimination, due process would be required, and labeling the petitioner a security risk without a hearing was unfair.
The Supreme Court ruled that the commanding officer was authorized to deny the civilian petitioner access to the naval installation based on security regulations and the historical power of commanding officers to exclude civilians. Additionally, the petitioner did not have a constitutional right to work at that specific military installation. The Court also held that the petitioner's due process rights under the 5th Amendment were not violated when her identification badge was revoked without being provided the specific grounds or a hearing, as government employment can be denied without due process protections. The dissenting justices argued that if the dismissal was due to discrimination, due process would be required, and labeling the petitioner a security risk without a hearing was unfair.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union v Neil RULING:
McElroy NO - The Supreme Court held that respondent
367 US 886 commanding officer was authorized to deny civilian June 19, 1961 petitioner access to the installation under Article 0734 of the Navy Regulations and in light of the FACTS: historically unquestioned power of a commanding This is an action by the union and its officer summarily to exclude civilians from the area of employee against the Secretary of Defense, his command. This power has been recognized many McElroy, to compel the return of the times. identification badge so that she might be permitted to enter a military installation Additionally, Brawner had no right to be there in the and resume her former employment. first place and she was not deprived of her liberty or Petitioner Brawner is a short-order cook at property by the military action. The procedure a cafeteria operated by her employer, enshrined in the constitution is not required. The Fifth M&M Restaurant, on the premises of the Amendment does no require a trial-type hearing in Naval Gun Factory. every case of government impairment of private She had worked there for more than six interest. All that was denied was her opportunity to years and her record was entirely work at one isolated and specific military installation satisfactory. and not the right to follow a chosen trade. Access to the Gun Factory was highly Furthermore, what was discussed here is the restricted due to the nature of its managing of the internal operations of an important operations and identification badges were federal military establishment. For that reason alone, issued to persons authorized to enter the the government has traditionally exercised unfettered premises. Brawner was issued such badge. control. The cafeteria was engaged under a contract with the Gun Factory, which stated that its The court also held that the Due Process Clause of personnel must not fail to meet the security U.S. Const. amendment V was not violated. Due requirements of the facility. Process is not a technical conception with a fixed Eventually, Brawner was required to turn in content. her identification badge due to the order of Lt. Cmd. Williams for the reason that she Due process did not require that civilian petitioner be had failed to meet the security requirement advised of the specific grounds for her exclusion and of the installation. The contract was the be accorded a hearing, because government basis of the action. employment, in the absence of legislation, could be The union of the cafeteria then arranged a summarily denied. meeting with the officials for the purpose of a hearing regarding the denial of Brawner’s The judgment was affirmed because a naval admittance to the facility. However, such regulation authorized a commanding officer meeting was denied on the ground that summarily to exclude tradesmen or their agents from such meeting would serve no useful a military installation. Moreover, civilian petitioner's purpose. summary exclusion without being advised of the During this time, Brawner was unable to specific grounds for her exclusion and a hearing did enter the facility and work. M&M offered not violate the Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. her a new position in another restaurant amendment V. but she declined due to the inconvenience of the location. Dissenting by Justice Brennan and Justice Black – If Hence, the case of compelling the Brawner’s dismissal was due to the reason of race, defendants to return Brawner’s badge and religion, or political opinion, there is doubt that the allow her to resume work. constitution must protect her right to due process. TC: Denied petitioner. But as the court says, there’s no such discrimination CA: Affirmed TC. Certiorari granted due to in this case. This case deprived Brawner the chance to CA’s decision in Greene v McElroy. be heard what she has done wrong since she was entitled to no process at all; nor is she given a chance ISSUE: to defend herself. The right to be heard before being W/N the commanding officer of the Gun Factory condemned to suffer grievous loss is a basic principle deprived Brawner her constitutional right under Art. to society. V of the US Constitution, which is the protects the right to due process? In short, the Court says that Brawner has a right not to have her identification badge taken away for an arbitrary reason by she has no right to be told what the reason is for her barring or to defend herself. This is a contradiction I cannot subscribe.
Additionally, she is labeled as a security risk, which
connotes a meaning that states her identity as one that is of a communist. Such label is a badge of infamy putting an individual at risk of harm and loss.
In my view, this is fundamentally unfair and violative
of the due process clause; to deprive her of a valuable relationship so summarily.
