User:Linfin/sandbox

Elrod v. Burns
Elrod v. Burns,, was a landmark case in the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The Burger Court determined that "a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee may not be discharged from a job that he is satisfactorily performing, upon the sole ground of his political belief, and that no other issue is involved in this case". This case also set the precedent for future cases regarding the practice of patronage dismissals violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment s, such as Branti v. Finkel (1980).

Background
In December 1970, Richard J. Elrod, a Democrat, was elected as the new sheriff for Cook County, Illinois to replace the former sheriff, a Republican. Upon being hired, Elrod discharged all employees "not affiliated with or sponsored by the Democratic party." Since they were non-civil service employees, no law protected them from being discharged. The purpose of this case was to determine whether or not public employees discharged because of their political affiliation is a "deprivation of constitutional rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Prior to this case, it had been the practice of the Cook County Sheriff upon being elected to hire employees from their party, and fire employees of the opposite party. This lawsuit was filed against Richard J. Elrod, Richard J. Daley, the Democratic Organization of Cook County, and the Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County by John Burns, Frank Vargas, Fred L. Buckley, and Joseph Dennard on the grounds that they discharged employees for not being affiliated with the Democratic party.

This case was based on the concept of political patronage, which has existed since the presidency of Andrew Jackson; in the context of Elrod v. Burns, it means "placing loyal supporters in government jobs that may or may not have been made available by political discharges." Elrod v. Burns involves the First Amendment because it clearly violates the right to freedom of expression. Americans have the right to associate with whatever political party they choose, yet when employees are fired for their political beliefs, it becomes problematic. By firing employees, it negates their right to freedom of expression, since they were fired for belonging to the opposite party of their superior. It is quite clear that the respondents involved with this case had their First Amendment right to freedom of expression violated seeing as they were discharged by the Democrat Sheriff for being Republicans. This case also referenced another landmark Supreme Court case, Keyishian v. Board of Regents which held that "political association alone could not, consistently with the First Amendment, constitute an adequate ground for denying public employment."

However, Elrod v. Burns was one of the first major cases to determine that employees cannot be terminated solely based on their political affiliation. This case set the precedent for future cases based on employee termination based on political affiliation; one of which being Branti v. Finkel.

Decision- June 28, 1976
Majority Opinion

United States Supreme Court Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion for Elrod v. Burns which decided that:"'Neither the political-question doctrine nor the separation-of-powers doctrine makes this case inappropriate for judicial resolution, since, inter alia, neither doctrine applies to the federal judiciary's relationship to the States. The practice of patronage dismissals violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and respondents thus stated a valid claim for relief.'"They also determined that: "a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee may not be discharged from a job that he is satisfactorily performing, upon the sole ground of his political belief, and that no other issue is involved in this case". Essentially, this decision means that employees cannot be fired solely because of their political beliefs because it violates the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. By firing his employees, Elrod took away their right to freedom of expression since they are not allowed to keep their job due to the fact that they are Republicans, and Elrod is a Democrat.

Concurring Opinion

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Harry Blackmun delivered the concurring opinions for Elrod v. Burns."'Although I cannot join the plurality's wide-ranging opinion, I can and do concur in its judgment. This case does not require us to consider the broad contours of the so-called patronage system, with all its variations and permutations. In particular, it does not require us to consider the constitutional validity of a system that confines the hiring of some governmental employees to those of a particular political party, and I would intimate no views whatever on that question. The single substantive question involved in this case is whether a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee can be discharged or threatened with discharge from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs. I agree with the plurality that he cannot.'"This opinion is important because although Justices Stewart and Blackmun agree that employees cannot be fired on the grounds of their political beliefs, they do not believe that this is a constitutional issue. This means that while what Elrod did is inappropriate, he did not violate the First Amendment; in effect making his decision to terminate the Republican employees legal.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, and William Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinions for this case. There were two separate dissenting opinions for this case: one from Chief Justice Burger, and the second from Justices Powell and Rehnquist."Burger's Dissent:""'The Illinois Legislature has pointedly decided that roughly half of the Sheriff's staff shall be made up of tenured career personnel and the balance left exclusively to the choice of the elected head of the department. The Court strains the rational bounds of First Amendment doctrine and runs counter to longstanding practices that are part of the fabric of our democratic system to hold that the Constitution commands something it has not been thought to require for 185 years. For all that time our system has wisely left these matters to the States and, on the federal level, to the Congress. The Court's action is a classic example of trivializing constitutional adjudication - a function of the highest importance in our system.  [...] The considerations leading to these legislative conclusions are - for me - not open to judicial scrutiny under the guise of a First Amendment claim, any more than is the right of a newly elected Representative or Senator, for example, to have a staff made up of persons who share his political philosophy and affiliation and are loyal to him. It seems to me that the Illinois Legislature's choice is entitled to no less deference.'"Justice Burger's dissent is important because he believed that as Sheriff, Elrod had the right to comprise a staff of his choosing. As a result, this case has nothing to do with the First Amendment since Elrod was simply performing his duties as a newly elected Sheriff."Powell and Rehnquist Dissent:""'The Court holds unconstitutional a practice as old as the Republic, a practice which has contributed significantly to the democratization of American politics. This decision is urged on us in the name of First Amendment rights, but in my view the judgment neither is constitutionally required nor serves the interest of a representative democracy. It also may well disserve - rather than promote - core values of the First Amendment. I therefore dissent.'"This dissent is also important because like Justice Burger, Justices Powell and Rehnquist believe that this case has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Essentially, they believe that this is not a First Amendment case because what Elrod did does not "promote the core values of the First Amendment."

These dissenting opinions are significant because it shows that political patronage dismissals do not violate the First Amendment, Elrod was simply performing his duties as the new sheriff when he fired the employees.

Without the decision from this case, there would be no precedent set for future cases in which political patronage dismissals violate an employee's First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

Subsequent Decisions
Elrod v. Burns set the precedent for another Supreme Court case, Branti v. Finkel in 1980. Justices John P. Stevens, joined by Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun decided that "The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect respondents from discharge solely because of their political beliefs." Elrod v. Burns should be considered a landmark case because without its decision, Branti v. Finkel could not have been decided either. Essentially, all cases involving an employee's termination based on political affiliation reference Elrod v. Burns because "a nonpolicymaking, nonconfidential government employee may not be discharged from a job that he is satisfactorily performing, upon the sole ground of his political beliefs...".

This case was also referenced as recently as 2016 in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, where the Supreme Court determined that "The First Amendment generally prohibits government officials from dismissing or demoting an employee because of the employee's engagement in constitutionally protected political activity." Even though Elrod v. Burns was decided in 1976, the fact that it was referenced in a 2016 shows its continued and lasting impact.