Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) was a case before the United States Supreme Court.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."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Sugarman_v._Dougall abstract "Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) was a case before the United States Supreme Court.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.".