Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. v. Dougall et al.
The Court held that a state law restricting certain civil service jobs to citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it "swep indiscriminately".
413 U.S. 634 · No. 71-1222 · 1972 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 25, 1973 · argued Jan 8, 1973
Civil rights · Employability of aliens
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajorityDissent
8–18 in the majority, 1 in dissent
1 dissent (8–1)
Affirmed. Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the New York Southern U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that a state law restricting certain civil service jobs to citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it "swep indiscriminately". Plaintiffs were federally registered resident aliens. They sued when, because of their alienage, they were discharged from their competitive civil service positions with New York City. Respondents challenged the constitutionality of N.Y. Civil Service Law § 53, which denied all aliens the right to hold positions in New York's classified competitive civil service. Respondents sought a declaration that the statute was invalid under U.S. Constitution amendments I and XIV, injunctive relief, and damages for lost earnings.
The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and determined that aliens as a class were a prime example of a discrete and insular minority. Classifications based on alienage were subject to close judicial scrutiny. The Court looked to the substantially of the state's interest in enforcing the statute and to the narrowness of the limits within which the discrimination was confined. The Court concluded that § 53 was unconstitutional.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1972 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(1)
William RehnquistWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al.State (New York)
- Respondent
- Dougall et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 25, 1973DecidedDecided · Decided 8–1: affirmed. Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. lost.
- Jan 8, 1973ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the New York Southern U.S. District Court: reversed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
12 other argued cases since 1946 on employability of aliens, newest first.
- Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board467 U.S. 883Jun 25, 1984 · 467 U.S. 883Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.467 U.S. 216May 30, 1984 · 467 U.S. 216Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Cabell, Acting Chief Probation Officer of Los Angeles County, et al. v. Chavez-Salido et al.454 U.S. 432Jan 12, 1982 · 454 U.S. 432Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ambach, Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al. v. Norwick et al.441 U.S. 68Apr 17, 1979 · 441 U.S. 68Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Foley v. Connelie, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.435 U.S. 291Mar 22, 1978 · 435 U.S. 291Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors et al. v. Flores de Otero426 U.S. 572Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 572Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Hampton, Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Mow Sun Wong et al.426 U.S. 88Jun 1, 1976 · 426 U.S. 88Civil rights5–45–4 band
- De Canas et al. v. Bica et al.424 U.S. 351Feb 25, 1976 · 424 U.S. 351Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Saxbe, Attorney General, et al. v. Bustos et al.419 U.S. 65Nov 25, 1974 · 419 U.S. 65Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Espinoza et vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.414 U.S. 86Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 86Civil rights8–18–1 band
- In re Griffiths413 U.S. 717Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 717Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission et al.334 U.S. 410Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 410Civil rights7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.