Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

Petitioner
Cynthia Rutan, et al.
Respondent
Republican Party of Illinois, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the Republican governor of Illinois violated their First Amendment freedom of association by requiring they support the Republican Party to receive state jobs, transfers, recalls, or promotions.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Mary Lee Leahy
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas P. Sullivan
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), ThurgoodMarshall, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
21 June 1990
Decision
The Court found for the petitioner, expanding the First Amendment protectionagainst dismissal from low-level government positions based on party affiliation, which had been established in two earlier cases.
Significance
Rutan was a further blow to the patronage system at all levels of government.
During most of the nineteenth century, American politicians followed the maxim, "To the victor belong the spoils." When a political party took control ofa government, it appointed its loyal supporters throughout the bureaucracy. This "spoils system," also called patronage, helped parties earn money, as people who wanted government jobs contributed campaign funds, and sometimes evenkicked back part of their pay to the party. Patronage, however, also led toilliterate clerks filling low-level jobs, and other incompetence at all levels of government.
Criticism of patronage grew, and in 1883 the first Civil Service Act was passed. To obtain most federal jobs, prospective employees now had to take an exam to show they were qualified. Test scores, not political affiliation, assured a job. Only high-level officials were appointed by government leaders, based on party loyalty. Over the years, civil service reform spread to state andlocal governments, and Congress passed a major Civil Service Act as recentlyas 1978.
Despite these reforms, issues about government hiring practices and party affiliation still stirred controversy. In 1980, Illinois governor Jim Thompson,a Republican, ordered a hiring freeze for government workers. When an existing job had to be filled, because of death, resignation, or the like, Thompson's office approved every new hire. This system might not have caused a problem, except that support of the Republican party seemed to be the major criterion for getting a state job.
State Workers Challenge the System
Cynthia Rutan, a rehabilitation counselor, had worked for the state of Illinois since 1974. Starting in 1981, she was denied promotions to supervisory positions because, she claimed, she was not a Republican faithful. A road equipment operator for the state, Franklin Taylor, said he was denied a promotion because local Republican officials did not support him. Three other people hadsimilar experiences. James W. Moore had not been hired because Republican officials did not back him; two others were not recalled after layoffs becausethey were Democrats. The five brought suit against the Republican Party of Illinois, claiming Governor Thompson's hiring policy was unconstitutional underthe First Amendment.
As well as protecting freedom of speech and religion, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean people have the freedom to associate with any group they want to associatewith. Low-level government workers, for example, should be able to join anypolitical party and not have that membership impact their employment. The Court had taken that position in Elrod v. Burns (1976) and Branti v. Finkel (1980). In those cases, the Court said a person's political association was not grounds for dismissal from a government position. Now, Rutan andthe other Illinois workers wanted the same protection in their circumstances.
In district court, Rutan and the other plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. When the case went to the court of appeals, the court affirmed part of the lowercourt's decision and reversed another. The appeals court said that basing hiring decisions on political affiliation did not contradict the First Amendment, so it dismissed Moore's claim. But the court ordered a rehearing for Rutanand the other three plaintiffs. The court also noted that the precedents setin Elrod and Branti only applied to employment practices thatwere the "substantial equivalent of a dismissal." Rutan, Taylor, and Moore then asked the Supreme Court to review this constitutional standard, as well asthe dismissal of Moore's claim.
Another Blow to Patronage
In a 5-4 vote, the Court said the state of Illinois, or any government, couldnot refuse to transfer, promote, recall, or hire workers because of their political affiliation. "To the victor," began Justice Brennan's opinion, "belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained." Brennan relied heavily on the arguments in Elrod and Branti, and said that although no one has a right to a government job, the government may not deny a jobon grounds that deny constitutional freedom--such as freedom of association.
The Court was clear that its ruling applied, as in the past, only to low-level employees. It recognized the need for an administration to choose higher-ranking officials based on political loyalty. However, people like Rutan, Taylor, and Moore should not have to compromise their political beliefs to ensurefavorable treatment in the government workplace.
Justice Scalia wrote a lengthy dissent, arguing that the issue of political patronage " . . . is a policy question to be decided by the people's representatives." Scalia believed that patronage had helped strengthen the two-party system in America, and its longevity argued for its effectiveness. Justice Stevens, in a concurring opinion, responded directly to Scalia's dissent. Regarding the point on the longevity of patronage, Stevens said the same argument could have been made for slavery, but that was hardly grounds for promoting it.
Scalia not only argued against the decision in Rutan, but also wantedto overturn the earlier rulings in Elrod and Branti. Those decisions, he said, "by contributing to the decline of party strength, have alsocontributed to the growth of interest-group politics in the last decade."
Coincidentally, the Rutan decisions came down on the same day the Senate refused to override a veto by President George Bush. Bush had rejected a bill that would have let federal employees become more involved in political activities. Legal reporter Linda Greenhouse, of the New York Times, sawthe two events as complementary: "One says, in effect, that government has to keep those whom it hires out of politics, while the other says it has to keep politics out of the decision of whom to hire."
Related Cases

• West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  
• Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of New York, 385 U.S.589 (1967).
  
• Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  
• Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).
  
• Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).
  
• Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986).