In the case of Sugarman v. Dougall, 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a New York law barring non-citizens from holding civil service jobs was unconstitutional. The court held that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against lawful resident aliens based on their alienage - a characteristic which bears no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society. The state argued that its interest in creating more job opportunities for citizens justified this discrimination; however, the court rejected this argument stating such blanket exclusion of aliens from public employment was not narrowly tailored enough to achieve this goal without unnecessarily infringing upon individual rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Sugerman v. Dougall, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to strike down a New York law barring non-citizens from civil service employment was incorrect. He asserted that this law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it served a legitimate state interest in ensuring loyalty and allegiance among its public servants. He contended that citizenship is an appropriate requirement for those who execute laws or administer public funds because these roles inherently involve participation in democratic governance which should be reserved for citizens only. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's application of strict scrutiny to this case, arguing instead for rational basis review given that alienage is not necessarily a suspect classification under equal protection jurisprudence.