In the case of Arnett v. Kennedy in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal law that allowed non-probationary civil service employees to be fired "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service" violated due process rights under Fifth Amendment because it did not provide for a hearing before termination. The court ruled 5-4 that this provision did not violate due process rights, arguing that public employment is granted subject to constitutional and statutory provisions and can therefore be revoked according to those same rules. The majority opinion held that since Congress had provided job security measures including post-termination hearings, these were sufficient protections against arbitrary dismissal without requiring pre-dismissal hearings.

In the dissenting opinion for Arnett v. Kennedy, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of due process. He contended that federal employees should not be deprived of their property interests without an opportunity to challenge dismissals before they take effect. The justice believed this right was fundamental and could not be overridden by Congress' desire to maintain an efficient public service system. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on legislative history in interpreting the Lloyd-La Follette Act, arguing it did not support their conclusion that Congress intended to limit procedural protections for dismissed employees. Instead, he suggested that such limitations were inconsistent with both statutory language and congressional intent.