Opinion ID: 365900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Progenitor

Text: 11 In Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States held that patronage dismissals of public employees discharging employees on a partisan, political basis infringe first amendment interests. Respondents in Elrod, all Republicans, were employees 5 of the Cook County, Illinois Sheriff's Office under a Republican sheriff. When a Democratic sheriff assumed office respondents were discharged or threatened with discharge Solely because they did not support, were not members of, or had failed to obtain sponsorship by one of the leaders of the Democratic party. Thereafter, respondents brought suit against the Sheriff of Cook County, the Mayor of Chicago, as well as the Democratic Organization and Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County. Their complaint alleged that they were discharged or threatened with discharge solely for the reasons that they were not affiliated with or sponsored by the Democratic party. They sought declaratory, injunctive, and other relief for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. 12 On review the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 6 which had reversed the district court's dismissal of respondents' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Although five justices joined in the result, there was no majority opinion for the Court: Mr. Justice Brennan announced the Court's judgment in his plurality opinion, while Mr. Justice Stewart concurred in the result but refrained from joining in the plurality's wide-ranging opinion. 427 U.S. at 374, 96 S.Ct. at 2690. 7 13 The plurality opinion held that while patronage dismissals infringe first amendment interests, they could survive constitutional challenge if they furthered some vital government end by a means that is least restrictive of freedom of belief and association in achieving that end, and the benefit gained . . . outweigh(s) the loss of constitutionally protected rights. 427 U.S. at 363, 96 S.Ct. at 2685 (footnote omitted). Three government interests were offered by petitioners in Elrod in justification of patronage dismissals: the need to insure effective government and the efficiency of public employees, the need for political loyalty of employees, and the preservation of the democratic process. On the facts presented, the Elrod Court rejected each interest as inadequate to justify infringement of respondents' first amendment rights of belief and association. 427 U.S. at 364-73, 96 S.Ct. at 2685-89. With regard to the need for political loyalty, however, Mr. Justice Brennan's plurality opinion did establish that patronage dismissals were constitutionally justified where limited to policymaking positions. 14 A second interest advanced in support of patronage is the need for political loyalty of employees, not to the end that effectiveness and efficiency be insured, but to the end that representative government not be undercut by tactics obstructing the implementation of policies of the new administration, policies presumably sanctioned by the electorate. The justification is not without force, but is nevertheless inadequate to validate patronage wholesale. Limiting patronage dismissals to policymaking positions is sufficient to achieve this governmental end. Nonpolicymaking individuals usually have only limited responsibility and are therefore not in a position to thwart the goals of the in-party. 15 No clear line can be drawn between policymaking and nonpolicymaking positions. While nonpolicymaking individuals usually have limited responsibility, that is not to say that one with a number of responsibilities is necessarily in a policymaking position. The nature of the responsibilities is critical. Employee supervisors, for example, may have many responsibilities, but those responsibilities may have only limited and well-defined objectives. An employee with responsibilities that are not well defined or are of broad scope more likely functions in a policymaking position. In determining whether an employee occupies a policymaking position, consideration should also be given to whether the employee acts as an adviser or formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals. Thus the political loyalty justification is a matter of proof, or at least argument, directed at particular kinds of jobs. Illinois State Employees Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d at 574. Since, as we have noted, it is the government's burden to demonstrate an overriding interest in order to validate an encroachment on protected interests, the burden of establishing this justification as to any particular respondent will rest on the petitioners on remand, cases of doubt being resolved in favor of the particular respondent. 16 427 U.S. at 367-68, 96 S.Ct. at 2687 (emphasis in original). 17 Mr. Justice Stewart declined to join in the plurality's consideration of the constitutional validity of the patronage system Generally. Instead, he viewed the single substantive question involved in (Elrod as being) whether a Nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee can be discharged from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs. 427 U.S. at 374-75, 96 S.Ct. at 2690 (emphasis added, Stewart, J., concurring). The answer was that he cannot.