Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois

In a 5-4 vote, the Court said the state of Illinois, or any government, could not 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 job on 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 ensure favorable 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 wanted to overturn the earlier rulings in Elrod and Branti. Those decisions, he said, "by contributing to the decline of party strength, have also contributed 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, saw the 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."