Political Retaliation-Qualified Immunity

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: James March v. Ronald Wolff, Jr.

Case No.: 25-1808

Officials: Brennan, Chief Judge, and Kirsch and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Political Retaliation-Qualified Immunity

finding A town administrator in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, was terminated after a newly elected faction assumed control of the Town Board of Supervisors. The administrator, who had held the position since 2008, alleged that his termination was retaliation for cooperating with an investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice into suspected corruption involving one of the newly elected supervisors. That supervisor had previously been involved in litigation against the Town and was later indicted on unrelated corruption charges, although he was ultimately acquitted. As the administrator’s relationship with the new board members deteriorated, they came to view him as politically aligned with their opponents and critical of their policies.

The administrator filed suit against the Town and individual supervisors in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his termination violated the First Amendment. The supervisor separately filed a counterclaim accusing the administrator of orchestrating his prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both matters. It concluded that the administrator’s termination did not violate the First Amendment and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish the constitutional limits on terminating policymaking officials for political speech. The court also rejected the supervisor’s counterclaim, finding insufficient evidence of state action or the differential treatment necessary to support a class-of-one equal protection claim.

The Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo and concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not establish that terminating a policymaking official under the circumstances presented violated the First Amendment. The court likewise affirmed the dismissal of the supervisor’s counterclaim, concluding that he had failed to establish a viable First Amendment retaliation claim or an equal protection class-of-one claim.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/07/26

Full Text