kelley
johnson
argued
december
decided
april
county
regulation
limiting
length
county
policemen
hair
held
violate
right
guaranteed
respondent
policeman
fourteenth
amendment
pp
respondent
sought
protection
fourteenth
amendment
ordinary
citizen
law
enforcement
employee
county
subdivision
state
distinction
one
considerable
significance
since
state
wider
latitude
notably
different
interests
imposing
restrictive
regulations
employees
regulating
citizenry
large
choice
organization
dress
equipment
law
enforcement
personnel
entitled
sort
presumption
legislative
validity
state
choices
promote
aims
within
cognizance
state
police
power
thus
question
whether
state
establish
genuine
public
need
specific
regulation
whether
respondent
demonstrate
rational
connection
regulation
based
county
method
organizing
police
force
promotion
safety
persons
property
pp
whether
state
local
government
choice
police
uniformed
reflects
desire
make
police
officers
readily
recognizable
public
foster
esprit
de
corps
similarity
garb
appearance
may
inculcate
within
police
force
justification
regulation
sufficiently
rational
defeat
respondent
claim
based
liberty
guarantee
fourteenth
amendment
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
stewart
white
blackmun
powell
joined
powell
filed
concurring
opinion
post
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
joined
post
stevens
took
part
consideration
decision
case
patrick
sweeney
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
howard
pachman
leonard
wexler
argued
cause
respondent
brief
richard
haefeli
james
vanr
springer
filed
brief
international
brotherhood
police
officers
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
district
eastern
district
new
york
originally
dismissed
respondent
complaint
seeking
declaratory
injunctive
relief
regulation
promulgated
petitioner
limiting
length
policeman
hair
respondent
appeal
appeals
second
circuit
judgment
reversed
remand
district
took
testimony
thereafter
granted
relief
sought
respondent
appeals
affirmed
granted
certiorari
consider
constitutional
doctrine
embodied
rulings
appeals
reverse
respondent
predecessor
individually
president
suffolk
county
patrolmen
benevolent
association
brought
action
civil
rights
act
petitioner
predecessor
commissioner
suffolk
county
police
department
commissioner
promulgated
order
established
standards
applicable
male
members
police
force
regulation
directed
style
length
hair
sideburns
mustaches
beards
goatees
prohibited
except
medical
reasons
wigs
conforming
regulation
worn
cosmetic
reasons
regulation
attacked
violative
respondent
patrolman
right
free
expression
first
amendment
guarantees
due
process
equal
protection
fourteenth
amendment
based
upon
generally
accepted
standard
grooming
community
placed
undue
restriction
upon
activities
therein
appeals
held
cases
characterizing
uniformed
civilian
services
sustaining
hair
regulations
basis
soundly
grounded
historically
said
fact
police
force
organized
centralized
administration
disciplined
rank
file
efficient
conduct
affairs
foreclose
respondent
claim
instead
bore
upon
existence
legitimate
state
interest
reasonably
advanced
regulation
dwen
barry
appeals
went
decide
choice
personal
appearance
ingredient
individual
personal
liberty
protected
fourteenth
amendment
held
police
department
failed
make
slightest
showing
relationship
regulation
legitimate
interest
sought
promote
basis
reasoning
concluded
neither
dismissal
summary
judgment
district
appropriate
since
department
burden
establishing
genuine
public
need
regulation
thereafter
district
compulsion
remand
appeals
took
testimony
question
whether
genuine
public
need
sole
witness
deputy
commissioner
suffolk
county
police
department
petitioner
subordinate
testified
police
department
concern
safety
patrolmen
need
standards
uniformity
appearance
district
held
proof
offered
support
claim
need
protection
police
officer
proper
grooming
ingredient
good
police
department
esprit
de
corps
petitioner
standards
establish
public
need
ultimately
reduced
niformity
uniformity
sake
district
granted
relief
prayed
respondent
petitioner
appeal
judgment
affirmed
without
opinion
appeals
ii
section
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
provides
pertinent
part
state
shall
deprive
person
life
liberty
property
without
due
process
law
liberty
interest
claimed
respondent
course
distinguishable
interests
protected
roe
wade
eisenstadt
baird
stanley
illinois
griswold
connecticut
supra
meyer
nebraska
cases
involved
substantial
claim
infringement
individual
freedom
choice
respect
certain
basic
matters
procreation
marriage
family
life
whether
citizenry
large
sort
liberty
interest
within
fourteenth
amendment
matters
personal
appearance
question
cases
offer
little
guidance
nevertheless
assume
affirmative
answer
purposes
deciding
case
find
assumption
insufficient
carry
day
respondent
claim
respondent
sought
protection
fourteenth
amendment
member
citizenry
large
contrary
employee
police
department
suffolk
county
subdivision
state
new
york
appeals
made
passing
reference
distinction
thereafter
apparently
ignored
think
however
highly
significant
pickering
board
education
noting
state
employment
may
conditioned
relinquishment
first
amendment
rights
stated
time
gainsaid
state
interests
employer
regulating
speech
employees
differ
significantly
possesses
connection
regulation
speech
citizenry
general
recently
sustained
comprehensive
substantial
restrictions
upon
activities
federal
state
employees
lying
core
first
amendment
csc
letter
carriers
broadrick
oklahoma
state
regulations
may
survive
challenges
based
explicit
language
first
amendment
surely
even
room
restrictive
regulations
state
employees
claim
implicates
general
contours
substantive
liberty
interest
protected
fourteenth
amendment
regulation
touches
respondent
employee
county
particularly
policeman
respondent
employer
accordance
duty
keep
peace
placed
myriad
demands
upon
members
police
force
duties
counterpart
respect
public
large
respondent
must
wear
standard
uniform
specific
detail
uniform
must
salute
flag
may
take
active
role
local
political
affairs
way
party
delegate
contributing
soliciting
political
contributions
may
smoke
public
regulations
suffolk
county
police
department
infringe
respondent
freedom
choice
personal
matters
apparently
view
appeals
burden
state
prove
genuine
public
need
every
one
regulations
view
based
upon
appeals
reasoning
unique
judicial
deference
accorded
judiciary
regulation
members
military
inapplicable
historical
functional
justification
characterization
police
conclusion
cases
inapposite
however
correct
way
detracts
deference
due
suffolk
county
choice
organizational
structure
police
force
county
chosen
mode
organization
undoubtedly
deems
efficient
enabling
police
carry
duties
assigned
state
local
law
choice
necessarily
gives
weight
overall
need
discipline
esprit
de
corps
uniformity
county
choice
organizational
structure
therefore
depend
constitutional
validity
doctrine
historical
prescription
indeed
respondent
made
claim
argument
challenge
constitutionality
organizational
structure
merely
asserts
present
regulation
infringes
asserted
liberty
interest
fourteenth
amendment
believe
however
regulation
viewed
isolation
must
rather
considered
context
county
chosen
mode
organization
police
force
promotion
safety
persons
property
unquestionably
core
state
police
power
virtually
state
local
governments
employ
uniformed
police
force
aid
accomplishment
purpose
choice
organization
dress
equipment
law
enforcement
personnel
decision
entitled
sort
presumption
legislative
validity
state
choices
designed
promote
aims
within
cognizance
state
police
power
lighting
missouri
prince
massachusetts
olsen
nebraska
recognized
contexts
wide
latitude
accorded
government
dispatch
internal
affairs
cafeteria
workers
mcelroy
think
suffolk
county
police
regulations
involved
entitled
similar
weight
thus
question
appeals
conceived
whether
state
establish
genuine
public
need
specific
regulation
whether
respondent
demonstrate
rational
connection
regulation
based
county
method
organizing
police
force
promotion
safety
persons
property
public
workers
mitchell
jacobson
massachusetts
think
answer
clear
district
quite
right
first
instance
dismissed
respondent
complaint
neither
appeals
district
position
weigh
policy
arguments
favor
rule
regulating
hairstyles
part
regulations
governing
uniformed
civilian
service
constitutional
issue
decided
courts
whether
petitioner
determination
regulations
enacted
irrational
may
branded
arbitrary
therefore
deprivation
respondent
liberty
interest
freedom
choose
hairstyle
williamson
lee
optical
overwhelming
majority
state
local
police
present
day
uniformed
fact
testifies
recognition
direct
operations
people
localities
directly
indirectly
choose
persons
similarity
appearance
police
officers
desirable
choice
may
based
desire
make
police
officers
readily
recognizable
members
public
desire
esprit
de
corps
similarity
felt
inculcate
within
police
force
either
one
sufficiently
rational
justification
regulations
defeat
respondent
claim
based
liberty
guarantee
fourteenth
amendment
appeals
relied
garrity
new
jersey
amicus
brief
support
respondent
elaborates
argument
based
language
garrity
policemen
like
teachers
lawyers
relegated
version
constitutional
rights
garrity
course
involved
protections
afforded
fifth
amendment
constitution
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
malloy
hogan
certainly
language
taken
suggest
claim
member
uniformed
civilian
service
based
liberty
interest
protected
fourteenth
amendment
must
necessarily
treated
constitutional
purposes
similar
claim
member
general
public
regulation
challenged
violate
right
guaranteed
respondent
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
appeals
therefore
wrong
reversing
district
original
judgment
dismissing
action
judgment
appeals
reversed
justice
powell
concurring
concur
opinion
write
make
clear
contrary
concern
expressed
dissent
find
negative
implication
opinion
respect
liberty
interest
within
fourteenth
amendment
matters
personal
appearance
see
poe
ullman
harlan
dissenting
state
interest
regulating
one
personal
appearance
certainly
case
must
weighing
degree
infringement
individual
liberty
interest
need
regulation
process
analysis
justifies
application
reasonable
regulation
uniformed
police
force
impermissible
intrusion
upon
liberty
different
context
footnotes
members
force
department
shall
neat
clean
times
duty
male
personnel
shall
comply
following
grooming
standards
unless
excluded
police
commissioner
due
special
assignment
hair
hair
shall
neat
clean
trimmed
present
groomed
appearance
hair
touch
ears
collar
except
closely
cut
hair
back
neck
hair
front
groomed
fall
band
properly
worn
headgear
case
bulk
length
hair
interfere
proper
wear
authorized
headgear
acceptability
member
hair
style
based
upon
criteria
paragraph
upon
style
chooses
wear
hair
sideburns
individual
chooses
wear
sideburns
neatly
trimmed
tapered
manner
haircut
sideburns
extend
lowest
part
exterior
ear
opening
even
width
flared
end
horizontal
line
mustaches
short
neatly
trimmed
mustache
may
worn
shall
extend
top
upper
lip
beyond
corners
mouth
beards
goatees
face
wearing
acceptable
mustache
sideburns
beards
goatees
prohibited
except
police
surgeon
may
grant
waiver
wearing
beard
medical
reasons
approval
police
commissioner
surgeon
prescribes
member
shave
beard
kept
trimmed
symmetrically
beard
hairs
kept
trimmed
protrude
inch
skin
surface
face
wigs
wigs
hair
pieces
worn
duty
uniform
except
cosmetic
reasons
cover
natural
baldness
physical
disfiguration
conditions
wig
hair
piece
worn
conform
department
standards
app
stradley
andersen
greenwald
frank
app
div
aff
without
opinion
district
dismissal
based
cases
upholding
discretionary
power
military
national
guard
regulate
soldier
hair
length
see
gianatasio
whyte
cert
denied
raderman
kaine
cert
dismissed
recognized
distinction
citizens
uniformed
employees
police
fire
departments
appeals
stated
individual
status
bear
existence
right
whether
right
outweighed
legitimate
state
interest
remand
complaint
appropriately
amended
reflect
interim
renumbering
modification
regulation
former
sections
see
supra
modified
provide
follows
members
force
neat
clean
times
duty
male
personnel
comply
following
grooming
standards
unless
excluded
police
commissioner
due
special
assignments
hair
neat
clean
trimmed
present
groomed
appearance
hair
go
ears
collar
except
closely
cut
hair
back
neck
pony
tails
prohibited
case
bulk
length
hair
interfere
proper
wear
authorized
headgear
member
chooses
wear
sideburns
neatly
trimmed
sideburns
extend
lowest
part
ear
sideburns
shall
flared
beyond
width
end
horizontal
line
sideburns
shall
connect
mustache
neatly
trimmed
mustache
may
worn
rules
procedures
police
department
county
suffolk
hereinafter
rules
procedures
illustrating
one
safety
problem
rapp
showed
assailant
throw
officer
balance
grabbing
hair
rear
levering
patrolman
back
noting
prohibition
ponytails
thus
proper
one
district
stated
remainder
however
bears
relationship
safety
rather
related
hair
styling
potential
danger
hairdress
ability
offender
grip
hair
hold
fate
police
officer
hand
bulk
length
hair
regulated
except
interferes
proper
wear
authorized
headgear
thus
regulation
permit
bulky
lengthy
hair
top
head
thereby
presenting
problem
demonstrated
remaining
subdivisions
sideburns
mustaches
wigs
regulated
beards
barred
proof
offered
support
claim
need
protection
police
officer
pertinent
regulations
pet
cert
high
morale
police
personnel
matter
grave
concern
department
proper
grooming
ingredient
esprit
de
corps
good
law
enforcement
organization
generated
individual
respect
commanded
public
serves
promotes
sic
efficiency
organization
work
however
exception
general
requirement
hair
sideburns
mustaches
neatly
trimmed
regulations
provide
standards
proper
grooming
rather
standards
nothing
demand
uniformity
uniformity
uniformity
sake
establish
public
need
defendant
offered
proof
beards
goatees
hair
styles
extend
ears
collar
sideburns
extend
lowest
part
ear
beyond
width
end
horizontal
line
affect
morale
members
police
department
earn
disrespect
public
rules
procedures
see
et
seq
code
ethics
appeals
found
desire
part
local
governments
like
suffolk
county
create
military
force
use
organization
evolved
practical
administrative
solution
emphasis
added
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
dissenting
today
upholds
constitutionality
suffolk
county
regulation
limiting
length
policeman
hair
assumes
purposes
opinion
citizenry
large
sort
liberty
interest
within
fourteenth
amendment
matters
personal
appearance
ante
think
clear
fourteenth
amendment
indeed
protect
comprehensive
regulation
citizens
may
may
wear
find
rationales
offered
justify
regulation
case
insufficient
demonstrate
constitutionality
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
recognizes
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
deprivation
liberty
protects
substantive
aspects
liberty
unconstitutional
restrictions
state
ante
observed
iberty
law
extends
full
range
conduct
individual
free
pursue
bolling
sharpe
see
also
poe
ullman
harlan
dissenting
seems
manifest
full
range
conduct
must
encompass
one
interest
dressing
according
taste
individual
personal
appearance
may
reflect
sustain
nourish
personality
may
well
used
means
expressing
attitude
lifestyle
taking
control
citizen
personal
appearance
government
forces
sacrifice
substantial
elements
integrity
identity
well
say
liberty
guarantee
fourteenth
amendment
encompass
matters
personal
appearance
fundamentally
inconsistent
values
privacy
autonomy
personal
integrity
always
assumed
constitution
designed
protect
see
roe
wade
stanley
georgia
griswold
connecticut
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
little
found
past
cases
indeed
nation
history
specific
issue
citizen
right
choose
personal
appearance
right
clear
beyond
question
right
mentioned
existence
simply
taken
granted
instance
assumption
right
exists
reflected
congressional
debates
guarantees
explicitly
articulated
bill
rights
brant
bill
rights
considerable
debate
whether
right
assembly
expressly
mentioned
congressman
benson
new
york
argued
inclusion
necessary
assure
right
infringed
government
response
congressman
sedgwick
massachusetts
indicated
committee
governed
general
principle
might
declared
man
right
wear
hat
pleased
ask
gentleman
whether
thought
necessary
enter
trifles
declaration
rights
government
none
intended
infringed
emphasis
added
taken
axiom
right
one
personal
appearance
indeed
used
existence
right
support
recognition
right
travel
right
travel
part
liberty
citizen
deprived
without
due
process
law
fifth
amendment
may
close
heart
individual
choice
eats
wears
reads
kent
dulles
emphasis
added
ii
acting
assumption
fourteenth
amendment
encompass
right
one
personal
appearance
justifies
challenged
regulation
grounds
regulations
may
based
desire
make
police
officers
readily
recognizable
members
public
desire
esprit
de
corps
similarity
felt
inculcate
within
police
force
ante
fully
accepting
aims
identifiability
maintenance
esprit
de
corps
find
rational
relationship
challenged
regulation
goals
first
justification
offered
simply
see
requiring
policemen
maintain
hair
certain
length
rationally
argued
contribute
making
identifiable
public
policemen
surely
fact
uniformed
police
officer
wearing
hair
collar
make
less
identifiable
policeman
one
easily
imagine
plainclothes
officer
readily
identifiable
simply
hair
extend
beneath
collar
second
justification
fact
president
patrolmen
benevolent
association
official
capacity
challenged
regulation
seem
indicate
regulation
anything
decrease
rather
increase
police
force
esprit
de
corps
even
one
accepted
argument
substantial
similarity
appearance
increase
force
esprit
de
corps
simply
understand
implementation
regulation
expected
create
increment
similarity
appearance
among
members
uniformed
police
force
regulation
prohibits
hair
ears
collar
limits
length
sideburns
allows
maintenance
type
hairstyle
ponytail
thus
long
hair
go
collars
two
police
officers
one
afro
hair
style
crewcut
full
compliance
regulation
cautions
us
view
regulation
isolation
rather
examine
context
county
chosen
mode
organization
police
force
ante
caution
well
taken
one
also
keep
mind
fear
ultimately
scrutiny
neither
overall
structure
police
force
uniform
equipment
requirements
members
subject
rather
regulation
dictates
acceptable
hair
lengths
fact
uniform
requirement
instance
may
rationally
related
goals
increasing
police
officer
identifiability
maintenance
esprit
de
corps
absolutely
nothing
establish
legitimacy
regulation
see
connection
regulation
offered
rationales
accordingly
affirm
judgment
appeals
held
constitution
protection
liberty
encompasses
interest
parents
children
learn
german
meyer
nebraska
interest
parents
able
send
children
private
well
public
schools
pierce
society
sisters
interest
citizens
traveling
abroad
kent
dulles
aptheker
secretary
state
interest
woman
deciding
whether
terminate
pregnancy
roe
wade
interest
student
damage
reputation
caused
suspension
school
goss
lopez
parties
address
first
amendment
issues
detail
governmental
regulation
citizen
personal
appearance
may
circumstances
deprive
liberty
fourteenth
amendment
violate
first
amendment
rights
well
tinker
des
moines
school
substantial
amount
litigation
concerning
constitutionality
regulations
applied
schoolchildren
cases
found
rationales
offered
regulations
sufficient
support
constitutionality
see
king
saddleback
junior
college
cert
denied
gfell
rickelman
ferrell
dallas
independent
school
cert
denied
cases
found
similar
regulations
unconstitutional
see
richards
thurston
breen
kahl
cert
denied
none
cases
however
indicated
constitution
may
offer
protection
comprehensive
regulation
personal
appearance
citizenry
large
history
dotted
instances
governments
regulating
personal
appearance
citizens
instance
effort
stimulate
countrymen
adopt
modern
lifestyle
peter
great
issued
edict
regulating
wearing
beards
throughout
russia
durant
age
louis
xiv
anyone
wanted
grow
beard
pay
annual
tax
one
kopek
peasant
one
hundred
rubles
rich
merchant
ibid
afford
beard
tax
many
beards
shaved
saved
preciously
order
placed
coffins
fearing
allowed
enter
heaven
without
robinson
readings
european
history
recent
instances
governments
regulating
personal
appearance
citizens
see
times
czech
police
stop
young
men
telling
get
haircuts
july
libyan
government
tells
youths
trim
hair
wear
sober
clothes
submit
training
army
july
young
men
rounded
given
haircuts
south
korean
police
described
government
officials
social
purification
campaign
police
force
south
vietnamese
youths
cut
hair
inconceivable
constitution
offer
protection
whatsoever
carrying
similar
actions
either
federal
state
governments
policeman
surrender
right
personal
appearance
simply
joining
police
force
see
tinker
des
moines
school
agree
appeals
status
individual
raising
claim
bears
existence
right
rather
question
whether
right
outweighed
legitimate
state
interest
thus
need
evaluate
governmental
interest
connection
challenged
governmental
action
present
party
whose
rights
allegedly
violated
public
employee
private
employee
see
csc
letter
carriers
hold
citizens
somehow
automatically
give
constitutional
rights
becoming
public
employees
mean
almost
million
american
citizens
currently
affected
executed
automatic
waivers
statistical
abstract
say
least
esprit
de
corps
argument
bolstered
fact
international
brotherhood
police
officers
union
representing
uniformed
police
officers
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
arguing
challenged
regulation
unconstitutional
regulation
eschews
appear
less
intrusive
means
achieving
similarity
hair
length
officers
according
regulation
policeman
comply
requirements
wearing
wig
hair
proper
length
duty
regulation
prohibits
wearing
wigs
hairpieces
duty
uniform
except
cosmetic
reasons
cover
natural
baldness
physical
disfiguration
ante
thus
regulation
terms
applies
grooming
standards
policemen
duty
provision
effectively
controls
appearance
mind
challenged
regulation
fails
pass
even
minimal
degree
scrutiny
need
determine
whether
given
nature
interests
involved
degree
affected
application
heightened
scrutiny
appropriate