Elrod v. Burns

Supreme Court of United States
427 U.S. 347 (1976)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The dismissal of public employees from nonpolicymaking positions solely on the basis of their political party affiliation violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protections for freedom of belief and association.

Facts:

In December 1970, Richard Elrod, a Democrat, was elected Sheriff of Cook County, replacing a Republican.
Respondents John Burns, Frank Yargas, Fred Buckley, and Joseph Dennard were all Republicans and non-civil-service employees of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office.
A long-standing practice existed in Cook County whereby a newly elected Sheriff from a different political party would replace non-civil-service employees with members of his own party.
Following Elrod's election, Burns, Yargas, and Dennard were discharged from their employment.
Buckley was threatened with imminent discharge.
The sole reason for the discharges and threatened discharge was that the respondents were not affiliated with or sponsored by the Democratic Party.

Procedural Posture:

Respondents (Burns, et al.) sued Petitioners (Elrod, et al.) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The District Court denied Respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The District Court subsequently dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Respondents, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to grant preliminary injunctive relief.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the practice of dismissing public employees from nonpolicymaking positions solely based on their political party affiliation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes. The practice of patronage dismissals for nonpolicymaking public employees violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Conditioning public employment on partisan support unconstitutionally infringes upon the freedoms of political belief and association. The government's asserted interests in efficiency and employee loyalty are not sufficient to justify this encroachment, as these interests can be served by less restrictive means, such as dismissing employees for cause. While the need for political loyalty may be a valid consideration for policymaking positions, it does not extend to nonpolicymaking roles. The Court's precedents, including Perry v. Sindermann and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, establish that the government cannot deny a benefit, such as employment, on a basis that infringes constitutionally protected interests.

Concurring - Justice Stewart

Yes. A nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee cannot be discharged or threatened with discharge from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs. This judgment is based on the narrow question presented and does not require a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the entire patronage system in all its forms, particularly concerning hiring practices.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger

No. The Court's decision is a significant intrusion into legislative and policy matters that should be left to the states. The Illinois Legislature made a conscious choice to leave some government positions outside the tenured civil service system, and this choice is entitled to deference. For nearly two centuries, such practices have been part of our democratic fabric and are matters properly reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, not questions for constitutional adjudication.

Dissenting - Justice Powell

No. The practice of political patronage is a long-standing tradition that has historically contributed to the democratization of American politics by strengthening parties and stimulating political activity. The plurality exaggerates the burden on First Amendment rights while underestimating the important state interest in maintaining a functional party system, especially at the local level. The respondents knowingly accepted patronage jobs and benefited from the system, and therefore should not be heard to challenge it when it is their turn to be replaced. Patronage hiring makes a substantial contribution to the practical functioning of our democratic system that outweighs the relatively modest intrusion on employees' First Amendment interests.

Analysis:

This landmark decision significantly curtailed the centuries-old practice of political patronage in American government. It established that the First Amendment rights of public employees to freedom of belief and association outweigh the interests of a political party in rewarding its supporters. The ruling extended the 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine to this context, affirming that government cannot condition a benefit like employment on the surrender of constitutional rights. The Court created a crucial, albeit undefined, distinction between 'policymaking' and 'nonpolicymaking' positions, which would become the central issue in subsequent patronage cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Elrod v. Burns (1976)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature