[1] The Court ruled in this case that public employees may be active members in a political party, but cannot allow patronage to be a deciding factor in work related decisions.

[3] The constitutional question is if the firing of Burns and the other respondents was in violation of the Hatch Act and within the jurisdiction of First Amendment accepted free speech by a public employee.

[5] Justice Powell wrote a dissent claiming that half of the employees in the Cook County, Ill. Sheriff's Office are merit based and are protected from being fired by a new administration.

"It is no concern of government what an employee does in his or her spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work or politics is his hobby, unless what he or she does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job."

– Mr. Justice Douglas[7] The court had deemed this as a balance between not restricting speech and making sure that public employees do not over step the boundaries of the office due to political affiliation.

The court decided in favor of the petitioner adding the Elrod v. Burns ruling that nonpolicymaking government employees cannot be hired based on political patronage.

[9] Following the Elrod v. Burns decision, the court has stayed with the sentiment that the free speech rights of government employees is protected when they are in non-policymaking or traditionally partisan roles.