First Amendment-Pickering Balancing Test

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Sam Inendino v. Annette Nance-Holt

Case No.: 24-2908

Officials: Ripple, Lee, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: First Amendment-Pickering Balancing Test

Inendino, a firefighter with sixteen years of service in the Chicago Fire Department (CFD), was dismissed after an investigation determined that he had posted racially offensive and derogatory content on his public Facebook account. His profile identified him as a CFD firefighter and included photographs of him in uniform. The posts targeted Black and Asian Americans, communities served by the CFD, and prompted public complaints that led to an investigation by the Office of Inspector General. The investigation concluded that the posts undermined public confidence in the department and recommended his termination, which the Fire Commissioner approved. The firefighter challenged his dismissal through arbitration but was unsuccessful.

The firefighter subsequently filed suit against the City of Chicago and two CFD officials in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. He alleged that his termination violated the First Amendment and argued that the City’s social media policy was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the Facebook posts were not protected speech because they did not involve matters of public concern. The court further held that, even if the posts addressed issues of public concern, the City’s interest in maintaining public trust and ensuring the efficient operation of the fire department outweighed the firefighter’s free speech interests.

On de novo review, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court erred in determining that the posts did not involve matters of public concern. Nevertheless, applying the Pickering balancing test, the court found that the City’s interest in preserving public confidence in the fire department, particularly in light of the firefighter’s public association with the CFD and the nature of the posts, outweighed his First Amendment interests.

Affirmed.

Decided 07/16/26

Full Text