This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An executive order of the Illinois state governor implemented a hiring freeze that subjected any modification in employment to his ‘express permission.’ Petitioner Rutan and five other state employees have each been denied promotion or failed to retain their state employment through the ‘express permission’ restriction. However, the Petitioners observed that the government usually granted express permission to Republican voters or supporters of the Republication Party. The Petitioners surmised that the express permission’ requirement’ was a device to confer employment benefits to members of the Republican Party. The Petitioners asserted that the state law, through its ‘express permission’ policy violated the First Amendment because the First Amendment prohibits termination of employees on the basis of their party affiliation or because they lacked Republican credentials. The Respondent does not deny the Petitioners’ claims but maintains that conditioning employment based on party affiliation does not evidence a constitutional violation, and even if it does, this system of employment does not violate the First Amendment because it does not influence an employee belief or association. The District Court dismissed the Petitioners’ complaint. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the First Amendment is violated when an adverse employment decision is made on the basis a political party affiliation if the action is equivalent to a dismissal. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.