Bobby Bland v. B. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368

Six Hampton Sheriffs Office employees (Bland, Carter, Dixon, McCoy, Sandhofer, Woodward) sued Sheriff Roberts for First Amendment retaliation (speech and association) related to non-reappointment after his 2009 reelection.
Roberts used office resources to support his reelection; some employees assisted in fundraising and campaigns.
Carter, McCoy, and Dixon were sworn deputies with jailer roles; Sandhofer, Woodward, Bland were non-deputies or civilian staff with varying duties.
Jenkins v. Medford and Knight v. Vernon influence Elrod-Branti analysis of political firing for deputy sheriffs and jailers; the panel later reversed/qualified immunity issues in Jenkins.
District court granted summary judgment to Roberts; district court held Elrod-Branti applied, and qualified/Eleventh Amendment immunities insulated the Sheriff from monetary damages.
The Fourth Circuit reverses in part, remands some claims for reinstatement considerations, and affirms in part regarding immunity and other claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Sheriff liable for association claims by Carter, McCoy, and Dixon?	Carter, McCoy, Dixon had genuine disputes whether political loyalty was a substantial factor.	Elrod-Branti applies; deputies may be terminated for political reasons based on duties.	Yes for Carter, McCoy, Dixon; genuine disputes; Sandhofer, Woodward, Bland not shown.
Was the Sheriff liable for speech claims by Carter, McCoy, and Dixon?	Facebook postings and campaign support were protected speech; causation shown.	Speech tied to political allegiance; tied to Elrod-Branti exception.	Yes for Carter and McCoy; Dixon also; Woodward no genuine dispute; district court erred on merits for some claims.
Does Eleventh Amendment immunity bar reinstatement and monetary relief in official-capacity claims?	Reinstatement claims fall outside Eleventh Amendment immunity; monetary claims do.	Official-capacity monetary relief barred by Eleventh Amendment; reinstatement barred only for monetary remedy.	Eleventh Amendment bars monetary relief in official capacity; reinstatement claims not barred.
Is the Sheriff entitled to qualified immunity for Carter, McCoy, and Dixon?	Conduct violated clearly established rights; no immunity.	Jenkins/Knight signals showed possible lawful firing for political reasons.	Yes for monetary claims; majority says qualified immunity applies; concurrence/dissent disagree.

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (patronage dismissals generally unconstitutional; narrow exception for policymakers/confidential roles)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (redefines Elrod exception to focus on whether party affiliation is needed for effective performance)
Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir. 1997) (deputy sheriffs may be dismissed for political reasons if they are policymakers; en banc discussion)
Knight v. Vernon, 214 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2000) (jailers have custodial duties; deputies' political loyalty may be required only for those with broad law-enforcement duties)
Stott v. Haworth, 916 F.2d 134 (4th Cir. 1990) (two-part Elrod-Branti framework focusing on position duties)
Id., 157 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 1998) (McVey v. Stacy; balancing test for public employee speech)
Pike v. Osborne, 301 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2002) (discusses clearly established law regarding dispatcher vs. deputy scope)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech made pursuant to official duties not protected; context matters)
City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (residential political signs as protected speech)