Furthermore, her office did not have a telephone, the general public did not have easy access to her, and her regular activities were essentially all clerical in nature, such as data entry.

Because of the context in which it was said (i.e., soon after learning of the failed assassination attempt) and because it did not appear to interfere with the efficient and orderly operation of office business, it was protected speech.

The Fifth Circuit's decision was affirmed, effectively reversing the District Court's ruling and demanded the reinstatement of McPherson as well as the consideration for the damages she sought.

Justice Powell filed a separate concurrence noting the private nature of McPherson's conversation and its constitutionally protected status.

The dissenters felt her statement included "violent words" rather than a genuine, albeit hyperbolic, attempt at criticism of the President's policies.

As Scalia's dissent states, "Once McPherson stopped explicitly criticizing the President's policies and expressed a desire that he be assassinated, she crossed the line."

He further quoted Petitioner Rankin's counsel that no law enforcement agency is required by the First Amendment to permit one of its employees to 'ride with the cops and cheer for the robbers'.

It was stated that Rankin, as Constable, had a very understandable interest in preventing his employees from even sounding as though they advocated violent crimes in the office, and, as such, the dissenting Justices believed he had even greater weight in the balance.