The case resulted in negotiations from 1969-1983 that brought to fruition the Shakman Decrees, largely reducing political corruption in the Chicago government.

Shakman claimed that the defendants, a number of government employees and politicians, had violated the fundamental rights of a fair and equal electoral process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

Along with being unconstitutional, Shakman claimed that it was a burden on taxpayers since the public funds and work hours allotted to these employees was being requisitioned for campaigns.

[1][2][3] The court underwent a thorough test of constitutionality of political patronage and considered the interests at stake within the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

[3] The court also recognized that there was a liability that the defendants had committed a civil conspiracy in the act of political patronage, thus incentivizing them negotiating a deal.

[3] The defendants admitted that they in fact were given a significant electoral advantage from political patronage and were therefore consenting to negotiate some acceptable terms that Shakman et al. could agree to.

These decrees enforced the principle that it was unlawful to affect an individual's employment status one way or the other on the grounds of political patronage and allegiances.

However, Rahm Emanuel believes that the ongoing case may soon be over, and has stated that the Chicago government is closer than ever to negotiating a proper balance of standards that both parties agree to.

Patronage was generally found to be unconstitutional and contrary to the belief in fair and equal elections, employee rights, and the use of public dollars.