Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois
497 U.S. 62 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conditioning public employment decisions such as promotions, transfers, recalls from layoff, and hiring on an employee's or applicant's political party affiliation or support violates the First Amendment, unless party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.
Facts:
- In 1980, Illinois Governor James Thompson, a Republican, instituted a hiring freeze for all state agencies under his control, affecting approximately 60,000 positions.
- The Governor's order required his 'express permission' for any new hires, promotions, transfers, or recalls after layoffs.
- The Governor's Office of Personnel was created to review these requests and allegedly operated a political patronage system.
- This system favored applicants who voted in Republican primaries, provided financial or other support to the Republican Party, or had the support of Republican Party officials.
- Cynthia Rutan claimed she was repeatedly denied promotions to supervisory positions because she did not support the Republican Party.
- Franklin Taylor alleged he was denied a promotion and a transfer to an office closer to his home due to a lack of Republican Party support.
- James W. Moore asserted he was repeatedly denied employment as a prison guard for not having the support of Republican Party officials.
- Ricky Standefer and Dan O’Brien claimed they were not recalled from layoffs because they lacked Republican credentials and support.
Procedural Posture:
- Five individuals sued various Illinois officials and the Republican Party in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging First Amendment violations.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that patronage practices violate the First Amendment only when they are the 'substantial equivalent of a dismissal.'
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the hiring claim (Moore's) but remanded the promotion, transfer, and recall claims for further proceedings.
- Both the employees (petitioners) and the state officials (cross-petitioners) petitioned for, and were granted, a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 conditioning promotions, transfers, recalls from layoff, and hiring decisions for low-level public employees on their political affiliation or support violate the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of belief and association?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. Promotions, transfers, recalls after layoffs, and hiring decisions based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees and applicants. The Court extended the principles from Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel, which prohibited patronage dismissals, to these other employment actions. The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes their constitutionally protected interests, even if the person has no 'right' to the benefit. These patronage practices place a significant burden on employees' freedom of belief and association, pressuring them to conform to a state-selected orthodoxy to advance their careers or secure employment. Such practices are not narrowly tailored to serve vital government interests, as employee effectiveness and loyalty can be achieved through less restrictive means.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Court's decision creates a constitutional principle that improperly strikes down a venerable and accepted political tradition of patronage. The government has greater latitude in its capacity as an employer than as a sovereign regulator, and employment practices should be judged by a more lenient standard than strict scrutiny. The patronage system, despite its flaws, serves legitimate governmental interests by promoting political stability, strengthening the two-party system, and facilitating the political integration of minority groups. The Court overstates the 'coercive' effect of patronage and wrongly substitutes its judgment for that of the people's elected representatives on a matter of political practice. The rule established in Elrod and Branti has proven unworkable and should be overruled, not extended.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. This opinion joins the majority and directly refutes the dissent's main arguments. First, prohibiting an unconstitutional condition on employment does not amount to judicially imposing a civil service system. Second, the argument that a long-standing tradition is immune from constitutional scrutiny is flawed; if that were true, the constitutional attack on racial discrimination would have failed. Third, the Elrod and Branti decisions were not dramatic departures but were firmly grounded in decades of precedent holding that the government cannot condition a public benefit on the surrender of First Amendment rights. The dissent's defense of patronage wrongly conflates partisan interests with the public interest and ignores the corrosive effect of such practices on the electoral process.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of First Amendment protections for public employees against political patronage. By extending the prohibition from dismissals (established in Elrod and Branti) to promotions, transfers, recalls, and hiring, the Court constitutionalized a core principle of the merit-based civil service system. The decision curtails the power of political parties to use government jobs as rewards, thereby protecting the belief and association rights of millions of public sector workers and applicants. It solidifies the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in the public employment context, making it clear that even the denial of a discretionary benefit cannot be used to penalize citizens for their political views.
