497 U.S. 62 (1990)
In November 1980, Illinois Governor James Thompson issued Executive Order No. 5, which imposed a hiring freeze affecting approximately 60,000 state positions not exempt from the civil service system.1 The order required express permission from the Governor's Office of Personnel for any hiring, filling of vacancies, creation of new positions, promotions, transfers, or recalls after layoffs.2 The Governor's Office screened applicants and employees based on factors including whether they had voted in Republican primaries, provided financial or other support to the Republican Party, promised future support, or had the backing of Republican Party officials.3
Five individuals brought suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois against state officials and Republican Party officials.4 Cynthia Rutan, a rehabilitation counselor employed by the state since 1974, alleged repeated denials of promotions to supervisory positions since 1981 due to lack of Republican support.5 Franklin Taylor, who operated road equipment for the Department of Transportation, claimed denial of a 1983 promotion and a requested transfer because of opposition from local Republican Party chairmen.6
James Moore alleged repeated denials of employment as a prison guard for the same reason.7 Ricky Standefer, a state garage worker, asserted he was not recalled after a layoff despite other employees being recalled, because he had voted in a Democratic primary and lacked Republican support.8 Dan O'Brien, formerly a dietary manager in the mental health department, contended he was not recalled after layoff due to his party affiliation and only obtained a lower-paying position in the corrections department after securing support from a local Republican Party chairman.9
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.10 The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in part and reversed in part in 1989, holding that only employment decisions substantially equivalent to dismissal violated the First Amendment and dismissing the hiring claim outright.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1989 to address whether the First Amendment protections against patronage dismissals extend to promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions.12
Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from conditioning promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs of low-level public employees on their political affiliation or support?13
The First Amendment forbids government officials to discharge or threaten to discharge public employees solely for not being supporters of the political party in power, unless party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the position involved.14 This rule extends to promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees because these actions impose significant penalties that pressure employees to conform their beliefs and associations.15
Yes. The rule applies directly to the established facts involving Rutan, Taylor, Standefer, and O'Brien.16 Cynthia Rutan has been repeatedly denied promotions to supervisory positions since 1981 because she had not worked for or supported the Republican Party.17 Franklin Taylor was denied a promotion in 1983 and a transfer to an office nearer his home because he did not have the support of local Republican Party chairmen.18
Ricky Standefer was not recalled after layoff although fellow employees were, because he had voted in a Democratic primary and lacked Republican support.19 Dan O'Brien was not recalled after layoff due to his party affiliation and obtained a lower-paying position only after receiving support from a local Republican chairman.20 None of these positions involved policymaking or confidential duties.21 The government interests in efficiency and loyalty can be met through less intrusive means such as discharging deficient performers or limiting political considerations to high-level positions.22
These denials therefore impermissibly encroach on First Amendment freedoms.23
The First Amendment prohibits a state from conditioning promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs of low-level public employees on their political affiliation or support.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens joined the Court's opinion.25 He wrote separately to emphasize that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to associate with the political party of their choice.26 Citizens may also disassociate from parties with which they do not agree.27 The patronage system burdens these rights by forcing public employees to support the political party in power.28 Employees must support the party to obtain or retain their jobs.29 This burden is not justified by the government's interest in ensuring loyalty or efficiency in the provision of public services.30
The system also has the effect of discouraging citizens from seeking public employment.31 Qualified individuals who do not wish to affiliate with the party in power are deterred from applying for government jobs.32 This has a detrimental effect on the quality of public service.33
Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from conditioning hiring decisions for low-level public employees on their political affiliation or support?34
Conditioning hiring decisions on political belief and association plainly constitutes an unconstitutional condition unless the government has a vital interest in doing so.35 The same First Amendment concerns that prohibit patronage in promotions, transfers, and recalls apply to hiring because denial of a state job is a serious privation that pressures applicants to compromise their beliefs.36
Yes. The rule applies directly to the established facts involving James Moore.37 Moore alleged that he has been repeatedly denied state employment as a prison guard because he did not have the support of Republican Party officials.38 A state job provides regular paychecks, health insurance, and other benefits.39 For some occupations the government is a major or the only source of employment.40
The burden imposed by conditioning hiring on political support is of constitutional magnitude.41 There is no vital government interest justifying the practice for low-level positions.42 The interests in efficiency and loyalty can be served by other means.43 The preservation of the democratic process is not furthered by patronage hiring any more than by patronage dismissals.44 The Seventh Circuit's distinction between hiring and dismissal is unavailing.45 The government is not pressed to make either decision on the basis of political affiliation without sufficient justification.46
The First Amendment prohibits a state from conditioning hiring decisions for low-level public employees on their political affiliation or support.47
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And O’connor And Kennedy, Jj.
Justice Scalia dissented.48 He argued that the Court's decision extending the prohibition on patronage dismissals to hiring, promotion, transfer, and recall is not supported by the First Amendment or by precedents.49 The patronage system has been a part of American politics since the founding of the Republic.50 It has been used by both major political parties to reward supporters and to ensure that government employees are loyal to the administration in power.51
The system promotes political accountability by allowing elected officials to implement their policies through employees who share their political views.52 The decision will have a disruptive effect on state and local governments.53 It will make it more difficult for elected officials to assemble a team of loyal and effective employees.54 It will also lead to increased litigation as public employees challenge routine employment decisions as being politically motivated.55
He would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and hold that the patronage system does not violate the First Amendment.56