Arnett v. Kennedy
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 1973 Decided April 16, 1974
Full case name	Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy et al.
Citations	416 U.S. 134 (more) 416 U.S. 134; 94 S. Ct. 1633; 40 L. Ed. 2d 15; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 125
Prior history	Kennedy v. Sanchez, 349 F. Supp. 863 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
Subsequent history	None
Holding
Post-termination procedures provided by the Civil Service Commission and Office of Economic Opportunity were found to have adequately protected appellee's liberty interests. In addition, the Lloyd-La Follette Act was neither impermissibly vague or overbroad.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority	Rehnquist, joined by Burger; Stewart
Concurrence	Powell; Blackmun; White
Dissent	Marshall; Douglas; Brennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court decision rejecting a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversary hearing.

[edit] Overview

A federal civil service employee in the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), was fired pursuant to the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 7501, after he was found to have recklessly made statements that an officer of the OEO had been involved in bribes. The employee was advised of his rights under regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (Commission) and the OEO on how he could reply to the charges and appeal any subsequent dismissal to the Commission or OEO. Appellee filed suit upon the claim that the discharge procedures authorized by the Act had denied him and others due process of law. The lower court sided with the employee. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Lloyd-La Follette Act had not created an expectancy of job retention requiring procedural protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also concluded that post-termination procedures provided by the Commission and the OEO adequately protected appellee's liberty interest in not being wrongfully stigmatized by untrue administrative charges. Finally, the Court held the Lloyd-La Follette Act was not impermissibly vague or overbroad in its regulation of federal employee speech.