well as questions of fact. Thus, the courts had jurisdiction. Reed subsequently engaged in an extensive review of the Court's jurisdiction. Reed relied heavily on United Public Workers v. Mitchell, decided earlier that day, for his rationale that the Civil Service Commission and Hatch Act had not violated Oklahoma's Tenth Amendment rights. As for whether the employee's service was active or passive, Reed relied on two facts. First, he deferred to the Civil Service Commission's expertise, which had previously determined that "service on or for" a political committee constituted participation. Second, he relied on the congressional debate during passage of the Act, which clearly indicated that there was no distinction between active and passive participation. Did the Civil Service Commission have the authority to impose the penalties it did? Reed believed so, and entertained no doubts that the Commission had the right to order the employee fired (a right explicitly granted in the Act) even though the employee was a state one. Concurrence Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred in the decision. However, he felt that the government was untimely in raising the issue of Oklahoma's standing to sue. He also believed that the state of Oklahoma lacked standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the Act. But since the majority had held otherwise on both these issues, he concurred in the majority's reasoning regarding the interpretation of law. Dissent Associate Justices Hugo Black and Wiley Blount Rutledge dissented, but wrote no opinion. Footnotes External links 1947 in United States case law United States elections case law United States ripeness case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court History of Oklahoma