Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees.

For his apparent public support of the other candidate, they demoted Heffernan to beat patrol work as a uniformed officer.

[1] Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that the department's belief was all that mattered, since the Court's precedent in this area holds it is unconstitutional for a government agency to discipline an employee (who does not work under a contract that explicitly permits such discipline) for engaging in partisan political activity, as long as that activity is not disruptive to the agency's operations.

[3] In order to better protect these rights in the Reconstruction Era, Congress passed the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 at the request of President Ulysses S. Grant to better counter white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan that were intimidating and suppressing voting by black citizens.

[4] The act provided a remedy for those citizens who were deprived of their constitutional rights under the "color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia" and is currently codified at 42 U.S.C.

[5] With its decision in Monroe v. Pape (1961), the Court expanded the reach of section 1983 such that it is now used as a method of checking abuse by state officials who infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

There, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a teacher who was fired after writing a letter to a local newspaper critical of its handling of a recent bond issue.

They soon notified superiors, and the next day officials demoted Heffernan from detective to patrol officer for his perceived "overt involvement" with the Spagnola campaign.

[17] In 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Cavanaugh's ruling and remanded the case to him with instructions that he was to allow Heffernan to present his freedom of association claim and consider the facts from the jury trial when reconsidering the summary-judgment motions.

He decided that Dye v. Office of the Racing Commission, a case in which the Sixth Circuit had held that the First Amendment reached perceived political association,[21] was not a precedent he could rely on since Dye itself explicitly rejected Ambrose, and as a district judge he could not reject circuit precedent.

In that case, the Court had said explicitly that disciplining employees for things they did not actually do did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

[1] Following the Third Circuit's decision, Heffernan petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, requesting they hear the case.

The National Association of Government Employees, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed amicus briefs in support of Heffernan, while the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the National Conference of State Legislatures filed briefs in support of the City of Paterson.

[24] Mark Frost, arguing for petitioner Jeffrey Heffernan, was immediately met with questions from the justices: Anthony Kennedy asked for clarification on the particular right to be protected, and Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts all questioned him about whether his rights could be infringed if he was not actually engaged in any speech.

[26] Justice Scalia (who died before the decision was announced) argued that there was "no constitutional right not to be fired for the wrong reason.

Assistant to the Solicitor General Ginger Anders, arguing on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in favor of Heffernan, continued this argument, stating that there is "a First Amendment right not to have adverse action taken against him by his employer for the unconstitutional purpose of suppressing disfavored political beliefs.

While the policy at issue was not a law of Congress, the actions were still that of a government official that infringed upon rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

[29] The Court supported this interpretation by recognizing that the First Amendment sought to prevent government actions from discouraging protected activity.

[33] Citing Branti v. Finkel, the Court pointed out that precedent never required plaintiffs in political affiliation cases to show change in allegiance to be successful, and similarly extended that logic to this case: the potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech still exists, regardless of the factual basis of the employer's reasoning.

Justice Thomas argued that the previous ruling should have been upheld "because federal law does not provide a cause of action to plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have not been violated".

Edelman suggested that, regardless of whether or not Heffernan intended to be identified as supporting the campaign, he was still punished by the city for associating.

Jonathan Stahl, a writer at the Constitution Daily, said that "[t]he potential impact of this case on our understanding of the First Amendment is notable.

[43] Subsequent to the Supreme Court's ruling, the City of Paterson approved a $1.6 million settlement payout to Heffernan.