Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

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 had similar experiences. James W. Moore had not been hired because Republican officials did not back him; two others were not recalled after layoffs because they were Democrats. The five brought suit against the Republican Party of Illinois, claiming Governor Thompson's hiring policy was unconstitutional under the 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 associate with. Low-level government workers, for example, should be able to join any political 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 and the 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 lower court'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 Rutan and the other three plaintiffs. The court also noted that the precedents set in Elrod and Branti only applied to employment practices that were the "substantial equivalent of a dismissal." Rutan, Taylor, and Moore then asked the Supreme Court to review this constitutional standard, as well as the dismissal of Moore's claim.