Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Cole v. Young Et Al.

• 1955 • 351 U.S. 536 • Warren Court
In the case of Cole v. Young et al., 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether an employee could be dismissed from a non-sensitive position in a federal agency based on national security grounds without due process protections. The plaintiff, George B. Cole, was removed from his position as Assistant Inspector for Marketing Facilities at the Department of Agriculture under Executive Order 10450 which allowed dismissal if it was deemed necessary in "the interest of national security." He...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1955
Docket: 442
351 U.S. 536
76 S. Ct. 861
100 L. Ed. 2d 1396
1956 U.S. LEXIS 1647
Argued: Mar 06, 1956

Cole v. Young Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Cole v. Young et al., 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether an employee could be dismissed from a non-sensitive position in a federal agency based on national security grounds without due process protections. The plaintiff, George B. Cole, was removed from his position as Assistant Inspector for Marketing Facilities at the Department of Agriculture under Executive Order 10450 which allowed dismissal if it was deemed necessary in "the interest of national security." He argued that he had been denied procedural rights guaranteed by the Veterans' Preference Act and Administrative Procedure Act because his job did not directly affect national security. The court held that only those positions within government agencies which explicitly dealt with matters affecting national security were subject to summary dismissals under EO 10450; all other employees were entitled to due process protections before being terminated or demoted. Therefore, since Mr.Cole's role didn't involve direct impact on National Security, he should have received these protections prior to termination.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Cole v. Young, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision undermined civil service protections and expanded executive power in a way not intended by Congress. He contended that the law at issue was meant to apply only to employees directly involved with national security matters, not all federal employees as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of "national interest" as it could be used arbitrarily without any clear standards or limitations. This broad interpretation would allow virtually any employee to be dismissed under this provision if deemed detrimental to national interest, thus undermining job security and due process rights of civil servants. Additionally, he expressed concern over potential abuses of power where dismissals could occur based on political affiliations or personal vendettas rather than legitimate concerns about national security.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(2)
Decided: Jun 11, 1956
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms