The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, January 16, 1990
Decision: Thursday, June 21, 1990
Issues: First Amendment, Miscellaneous
Categories: first amendment, freedom of association, freedom of speech, government employment, labor

Advocates

Mary Lee Leahy (Argued the cause for the petitioners in No. 88-1872 and the respondents in No. 88-2074)
Thomas P. Sullivan (Argued the cause for the respondents in No. 88-1872 and the petitioners in No. 88-2074)

Facts of the Case

In November 1980, Governor James Thompson of Illinois issued an order that prohibited state officials from hiring new employees, promoting state employees, or recalling state employees after layoffs without the approval of the Governor's Office of Personnel. The Office of Personnel based hiring and promotion decisions on factors such as the applicant's contributions to the Republican Party, the applicant's record of service to the Republican Party, and the support of local Party officials. In the jointly decided case of Frech v. Rutan, Cynthia B. Rutan and a number of other potential and current state employees challenged this patronage system, alleging that the Governor was violating their First Amendment rights by practicing unfair political patronage and party-based discrimination.

Question

Did Governor Thompson's practices in Illinois infringe upon the First Amendment rights of potential and current state employees?

Conclusion

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Governor Thompson's practices amounted to an unconstitutional patronage system. The Court found that employees would feel "a significant obligation to support political positions held by their superiors" in lieu of their true beliefs in order to progress up the career ladder. The Court thus held that "promotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliations or support" were impermissible infringements on the right to free expression of public employees. The Court noted that while the First Amendment was not "a tenure provision" protecting employees from "constructive discharge," it nevertheless prevented the government from interfering with its employees' freedom "to believe and associate."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Rutan, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote the majority opinion
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1872/>
(last visited ).