ÃÛÖ­ÏãÌÒ

Legal Principle at Issue

Did Heffernan’s demotion, based on his supervisors’ mistaken belief that he was engaging in political activity, violate his First Amendment rights, even though he was not actually engaging in protected political speech?

Action

In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Heffernan's First Amendment claim. Punishing an employee for perceived political activity sends a chilling message and violates constitutional protections for freedom of speech.

Facts/Syllabus

Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey. In 2006, while off-duty, he picked up a campaign sign for mayoral candidate Lawrence Spagnola (who was not the incumbent) to deliver to his bedridden mother. Other officers saw him and reported the incident to his supervisors. Both the chief of police and Heffernan’s supervisor had been appointed by Paterson’s incumbent mayor, who was running for re-election against Spagnola, a good friend of Heffernan’s. Heffernan was not involved in Spagnola’s campaign in any capacity. As a favor to his bedridden mother, Heffernan agreed to pick up and deliver to her a Spagnola campaign yard sign. Other police officers observed Heffernan speaking to staff at a Spagnola distribution point while holding the yard sign. Word quickly spread throughout the force. The next day, Heffernan’s supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer as punishment for his "overt involvement" in Spagnola’s campaign. His superiors believed he was politically supporting the mayor's opponent — though he was not actively involved in the campaign himself. Heffernan filed suit, claiming that the police chief and the other respondents had demoted him because, in their mistaken view, he had engaged in conduct that constituted protected speech. They had thereby deprived him of a "right . . . secured by the Constitution." The District Court, however, found that Heffernan had not been deprived of any constitutionally protected right because he had not engaged in any First Amendment conduct. Affirming, the U.S. Cout of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that Heffernan’s claim was actionable under §1983 only if his employer’s action was prompted by Heffernan’s actual, rather than his perceived, exercise of his free-speech rights.

Importance of Case

This case expanded First Amendment protections for public employees by focusing on employer intent rather than the employee’s actual behavior. The Court reaffirmed that government actions motivated by the desire to suppress political activity, real or perceived, can violate constitutional rights.