InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Foley v. Connelie, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.

435 U.S. 291 · No. 76-839 · 1977 term · Burger Court

Decided Mar 22, 1978 · argued Nov 8, 1977

Civil rights · Employability of aliens

Majority opinion: Warren Burger

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Foley 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).

Foley 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.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1977 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensWhiteStewartBlackmunPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
FoleyAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
Respondent
Connelie, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.State (New York)
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.

Report a correction

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)
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Mar 22, 1978DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Foley lost.
  2. Nov 8, 1977ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

12 other argued cases since 1946 on employability of aliens, newest first.

  1. Sure-Tan, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board467 U.S. 883Jun 25, 1984 · 467 U.S. 883Civil rights7–27–2 band

  2. Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.467 U.S. 216May 30, 1984 · 467 U.S. 216Civil rights8–18–1 band

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. De Canas et al. v. Bica et al.424 U.S. 351Feb 25, 1976 · 424 U.S. 351Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  8. Saxbe, Attorney General, et al. v. Bustos et al.419 U.S. 65Nov 25, 1974 · 419 U.S. 65Civil rights5–45–4 band
  9. Espinoza et vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.414 U.S. 86Nov 19, 1973 · 414 U.S. 86Civil rights8–18–1 band

  10. In re Griffiths413 U.S. 717Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 717Civil rights7–27–2 band
  11. Sugarman, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. v. Dougall et al.413 U.S. 634Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 634Civil rights8–18–1 band

  12. 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.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.