Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2455 Garcia v. Kankakee County Housing Authority, et al.

By: dmc-admin//February 4, 2002//

01-2455 Garcia v. Kankakee County Housing Authority, et al.

By: dmc-admin//February 4, 2002//

Listen to this article

“The Supreme Court has held that all policy-making officials, and some others, may be required on pain of dismissal to give both public and private support to the political agenda of those who hold elected office, and their top appointees. The Court has yet to articulate a rule for how far this circle of conformity extends, but it includes all employees whose views can promote or defeat a political program. See Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 518 (1980); Wilbur v. Mahan, 3 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993).

“The Executive Director of a public agency fits that description-more securely than, say, the deputy director of a bureaucracy, a position that we have held may be limited to those who hold views sympathetic with elected officials…. So Garcia’s failure to support Chairman Ruch could have been a basis for his discharge; what is more, Garcia acted on his views, countermanding Ruch’s instructions within the Agency. This demonstrates either that Garcia was a policymaking official (who could be fired for political views even on the broadest reading of Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and its sequels) or that he was gumming up the works despite lack of discretionary authority, and could be fired for that reason. It makes no difference whether Garcia knew more (or knew better) than Ruch about how to run a public housing agency. Many bureaucrats think that they can manage the organization better than political leaders (and often the bureaucrats are right), but those who have been elected by the populace (or appointed by elected officials) are entitled to make policy even if that means making mistakes. The first amendment does not frustrate democracy by requiring elected officials to tolerate what they reasonably perceive as subversion by bureaucrats. Nor does the first amendment prevent political officials from insisting that ‘interim’ appointees speak and act like caretakers.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Easterbrook, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests