Kelley v. Johnson - 425 U.S. 238, 96 S. Ct. 1440 (1976)

Rule:

The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the state's police power, and virtually all state and local governments employ a uniformed police force to aid in the accomplishment of that purpose. Choice of organization, dress, and equipment for law enforcement personnel is a decision entitled to the same sort of presumption of legislative validity as are state choices designed to promote other aims within the cognizance of the State's police power.

Facts:

A civil rights action was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Commissioner of the Suffolk County, New York, Police Department by a policeman, individually and as president of the Suffolk County Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, seeking to invalidate Order No. 71-1, a regulation governing hair grooming for male members of the county police force, as violative of patrolmen's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court dismissed the complain, but on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that choice of personal appearance was an ingredient of an individual's personal liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the police department had failed to make the slightest showing of the relationship between the hair regulation and the legitimate interest it sought to promote. On remand, the District Court held that no proof had been offered to support any claim of the need for protection of the police officer's safety, and that while proper grooming was an ingredient of a good police department's esprit de corps, the hair grooming standards did not establish a public need because it ultimately reduced to uniformity for uniformity's sake. On appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the relief requested, the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Commissioner appealed.

Issue:

Did the regulation limiting the length of the county policemen’s hair violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the Court reversed holding that the regulation challenged did not violate any right guaranteed to respondent by U.S. Const. amend. XIV, since if it were assumed that all citizens had some sort of liberty interest within the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to matters of personal appearance, the choice reflected in the regulation that it was desirable for police officers to be similar in appearance, whether based on a desire to make police officers readily recognizable to the public or on a desire for esprit de corps, was rationally justified. The Court found that the court of appeals was wrong in reversing the district court's original judgment dismissing the action. The courts were not in a position to weigh the policy arguments in favor of and against a rule regulating hairstyles as a part of police regulations.