Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 16, 1990; Decided June 21, 1990
Full case name	Rutan, et al. v. Republican Party of Illinois, et al.
Docket nos.	88-1872
Citations	497 U.S. 62 ( more ) 110 S. Ct. 2729; 111 L. Ed. 2d 52; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3298
Argument	Oral argument
Prior history	Judgment for the defendant, 641 F. Supp. 249 (1986); affirmed in part and reversed in part, 868 F. 2d 943 (1989).
Holding
	Promotion, transfer, recall, and/or hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may not be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Thurgood Marshall ; Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens ; Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia ; Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Concurrence	Stevens
Dissent	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy; O'Connor (parts II, III)
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. I

Last updated February 19, 2019

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62(1990),^[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the First Amendment forbids a government entity from basing its decision to promote, transfer, recall, or hire low-level public employees based upon their party affiliation.

<i>United States Reports</i> official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about 100–150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Background

Illinois Governor James Thompson issued an executive order instituting a hiring freeze, whereby state officials were prohibited from hiring any employee, filling any vacancy, creating any new position, or taking any similar action without the Governor's "express permission." It affected approximately 60,000 state positions. More than 5,000 of these become available each year as a result of resignations, retirements, deaths, expansion, and reorganizations. The order proclaimed that "no exceptions" were permitted without the Governor's "express permission after submission of appropriate requests to [his] office."

Illinois is a state in the Midwestern region of the United States. It has the 5th largest Gross Domestic Product by state, is the 6th-most populous U.S. state and 25th-largest state in terms of land area. Illinois is often noted as a microcosm of the entire United States. With Chicago in the northeast, small industrial cities and great agricultural productivity in northern and central Illinois, and natural resources such as coal, timber, and petroleum in the south, Illinois has a diverse economic base, and is a major transportation hub. Chicagoland, Chicago's metropolitan area, contains over 65% of the state's population. The Port of Chicago connects the state to other global ports around the world from the Great Lakes, via the Saint Lawrence Seaway, to the Atlantic Ocean; as well as the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River, via the Illinois Waterway on the Illinois River. The Mississippi River, the Ohio River, and the Wabash River form parts of the boundaries of Illinois. For decades, Chicago's O'Hare International Airport has been ranked as one of the world's busiest airports. Illinois has long had a reputation as a bellwether both in social and cultural terms and, through the 1980s, in politics.

James Robert Thompson Jr., also known as Big Jim Thompson, was the 37th and longest-serving governor of the US state of Illinois, serving from 1977 to 1991. A Republican, Thompson was elected to four consecutive terms and held the office for 14 years. Many years after leaving public office, he served as a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power.

Petitioner alleged that requests for the Governor's "express permission" had become routine. Permission had been granted or withheld through an agency expressly created for that purpose, the Governor's Office of Personnel (Governor's Office). Agencies had been screening applicants under Illinois' civil service system, making their personnel choices, and submitting them as requests to be approved or disapproved by the Governor's Office. Among the employment decisions for which approvals had been required are new hires, promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs.

By means of the freeze, according to petitioners, the Governor had been using the Governor's Office to operate a political patronage system to limit state employment and beneficial employment-related decisions to those who were supported by the Republican Party of the United States. In reviewing an agency's request that a particular applicant be approved for a particular position, the Governor's Office looked at whether the applicant voted in Republican primaries in past election years, whether the applicant had provided financial or other support to the Republican Party and its candidates, whether the applicant had promised to join and work for the Republican Party in the future, and whether the applicant had the support of Republican Party officials at state or local levels.

A petitioner is a person who pleads with governmental institution for a legal remedy or a redress of grievances, through use of a petition.

Five people brought suit against various Illinois and Republican Party officials in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. They alleged that they had suffered discrimination with respect to state employment because they had not been supporters of the State's Republican Party and that this discrimination violated the First Amendment.

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois serves the residents of forty-six counties from its four courthouses. The counties are: Adams, Brown, Bureau, Cass, Champaign, Christian, Coles, DeWitt, Douglas, Edgar, Ford, Fulton, Greene, Hancock, Henderson, Henry, Iroquois, Kankakee, Knox, Livingston, Logan, McDonough, McLean, Macoupin, Macon, Marshall, Mason, Menard, Mercer, Montgomery, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Piatt, Pike, Putnam, Rock Island, Sangamon, Schuyler, Scott, Shelby, Stark, Tazewell, Vermilion, Warren, and Woodford counties.

In human social behavior, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction towards, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include age, colour, criminal record, height, disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, generation, genetic characteristics, marital status, nationality, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Discrimination consists of treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated". It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on illogical or irrational decision making.

Issues

At issue was whether the decision of the governor to make hiring decisions contingent upon party affiliation violated the petitioner's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of freedom of association.

Freedom of speech political right to communicate ones opinions and ideas

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. Freedom of Association, The Essentials of Human Rights describes the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of Association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

Opinion of the Court

In an opinion by Justice Brennan and decided 5-4, the Court held that a government agency cannot constitutionally base employment-related decisions upon an employee or prospective employee's party affiliation. Citing Elrod v. Burns , the Court reasoned that conditioning public employment on the provision of support for the favored political party "unquestionably inhibits protected belief and association."^[2]

A government or state agency, sometimes an appointed commission, is a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions, such as an intelligence agency. There is a notable variety of agency types. Although usage differs, a government agency is normally distinct both from a department or ministry, and other types of public body established by government. The functions of an agency are normally executive in character, since different types of organizations are most often constituted in an advisory role—this distinction is often blurred in practice however.

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding political speech of public employees. The court ruled in this case that federal employees may be active members in a political party, but cannot allow patronage to be a deciding factor in work related decisions. The court upheld the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the respondent.

In Elrod v. Burns, the Court had reasoned that conditioning employment on political activity pressures employees to pledge political allegiance to a party with which they prefer not to associate, to work for the election of political candidates they do not support, and to contribute money to be used to further policies with which they do not agree. The latter, the plurality noted, had been recognized as "tantamount to coerced belief."^[2]

The Court acknowledged that a government entity has a significant interest in ensuring that it has effective and efficient employees. However, the Court expressed doubt that the "mere difference of political persuasion motivates poor performance." In any case, the government can ensure employee effectiveness and efficiency through the less drastic means of discharging staff members whose work is inadequate.

Although the preservation of the democratic process "may in some instances justify limitations on First Amendment freedoms," the "process functions as well without the practice, perhaps even better." Patronage "can result in the entrenchment of one or a few parties to the exclusion of others," and "is a very effective impediment to the associational and speech freedoms which are essential to a meaningful system of democratic government."

Citing Speiser v. Randall ,^[3] the Court noted that "for at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that, even though a person has no 'right' to a valuable governmental benefit, and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to `produce a result which [it] could not command directly.' Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible."^[3]

The Court further reasoned that employees who find themselves in dead-end positions due to their political backgrounds would be adversely affected by the Governor's order. They would feel a significant obligation to support political positions held by their superiors, and to refrain from acting on the political views they actually hold, in order to progress up the career ladder. Employees denied transfers to workplaces reasonably close to their homes until they join and work for the Republican Party would feel a daily pressure from their long commutes to do so. And employees who have been laid off may well have felt compelled to engage in whatever political activity was necessary to regain regular paychecks and positions corresponding to their skill and experience. Employees who do not compromise their beliefs stand to lose the considerable increases in pay and job satisfaction attendant on promotions, the hours and maintenance expenses that are consumed by long daily commutes, and even their jobs if they are not rehired after a "temporary" layoff.

In conclusion, the Court determined that promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of public employees. The Court decided that whether the four employees were in fact denied promotions, transfers, or rehire for failure to affiliate with and support the Republican Party was for the District Court to decide in the first instance.

Justice Scalia's dissent

Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy; Justice O'Connor joined Parts II and III of Justice Scalia's dissent, but not Part I.

Justice Scalia argued that the restrictions that the U.S. Constitution places upon government in its capacity as a lawmaker are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as an employer. "Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can."

Justice Scalia wrote that the provisions of the U.S. Bill of Rights were designed to restrain transient majorities from impairing long-recognized personal liberties, but that they did not create by implication novel individual rights overturning accepted political norms. He reasoned that when a practice not expressly prohibited by the text of the Bill of Rights bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the American Republic, the Supreme Court has no proper basis for striking it down.

Justice Scalia reasoned that political patronage has a long heritage in the history of the United States. He argued that the "Spoils System" largely enhanced by President Andrew Jackson was a testament to this heritage. Thus, Justice Scalia would have held that, while the First Amendment applies in full force to private individuals, it is severely restricted in its application for government employees. When weighed against the political heritage of the spoils system that was prevalent at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, the Court had no authority to whittle away at such a method of determining civil service.

Related Research Articles

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues, was unconstitutional.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.

Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause allowed a state to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the possession of 672 grams of cocaine.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning alleged discrimination against a nontenured teacher at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.

United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973), is a ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 does not violate the First Amendment, and its implementing regulations are not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution.

Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. By a 7–2 margin the justices held that it was not necessary to determine what a nurse at a public hospital had actually said while criticizing a supervisor's staffing practices to coworkers, as long as the hospital had formed a reasonable belief as to the content of her remarks and reasonably believed that they could be disruptive to its operations. They vacated a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in her favor, and ordered the case remanded to district court to determine instead if the nurse had been fired for the speech or other reasons, per the Court's ruling two decades prior in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), was a US labor law case where the United States Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the political activities of the union. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed that the union shop, legal in the private sector, is also legal in the public sector. They found that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes" while insisting that objectors to union membership or policy may not have their dues used for other ideological or political purposes.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the Committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark US labor law United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

References

↑ Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).
1 2 Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347 (1976).
1 2 Speiser v. Randall , 357 U.S. 513 (1958).

External links

Text of Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62(1990) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Rutan-1] Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).

[Elrod-2] 1 2 Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347 (1976).

[Speiser-3] 1 2 Speiser v. Randall , 357 U.S. 513 (1958).