Brandon Coker v. Julian Whittington, 858 F.3d 304

Two Bossier Parish deputy sheriffs (Coker and Golden) began cohabiting with each other’s wives before divorcing their own spouses.
The Sheriff’s Office Code of Conduct prohibited illegal, immoral, or indecent conduct and required deputies to notify supervisors within 24 hours of address changes.
Chief Deputy Owens placed Coker and Golden on administrative leave and ordered them to stop cohabiting with a married woman or be treated as voluntarily terminating employment.
The deputies did not change their living arrangements, were considered to have resigned, and sued the Sheriff, Chief Deputy, and the Sheriff’s Office alleging constitutional violations.
The district court upheld the Code and the dismissals, finding the policies rationally related to preserving force cohesion, public trust, and departmental reputation and not unconstitutionally vague.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that law enforcement officers’ private sexual conduct can be regulated given public-safety responsibilities, potential morale problems, and reputational interests; qualified immunity also applied to individual defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deputies had constitutional right to cohabit with another’s spouse while employed as deputies	Coker/Golden argued Lawrence-era privacy rights protect their private sexual associations	Sheriff argued law-enforcement status permits regulation of officers’ sexual conduct to protect public trust and internal discipline	Held for Sheriff — officers’ conduct can be regulated; no constitutional protection for this conduct in employment context
Whether Code of Conduct was unconstitutionally vague	Plaintiffs argued Code lacked fair notice and was applied arbitrarily	Defendants argued Code gave adequate notice and discipline targeted cohabitation, not mere contact	Held for Sheriff — Code not unconstitutionally vague as applied
Whether dismissal advanced a legitimate government interest	Plaintiffs claimed no sufficient governmental interest in policing their private relationships	Defendants asserted interests in unit cohesion, public confidence, and avoidance of litigation leverage	Held for Sheriff — rational basis exists relating to cohesion, reputation, and litigation risk
Qualified immunity for individual-capacity officials	Plaintiffs contended officials violated clearly established rights	Defendants argued no clearly established law prohibited warning/disciplining deputies for such conduct	Held for officials — qualified immunity would apply if rights existed; no clearly established precedent against warning/dismissal

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (invalidated criminal prohibitions on private consensual sexual conduct)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employees’ expressive rights are limited by job duties)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (constitutional right to marry recognized for same-sex couples; emphasizes formal marital bond)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary-judgment standard where video evidence dictates facts)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)
Shawgo v. Spradlin, 701 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1983) (upholding discipline for cohabitation in quasi-military units)
Shumpert v. City of Fulton, 77 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 1996) (government employees’ sexual relations may be tempered by state interest in regulating conduct)