Castine v. Zurlo
756 F.3d 171
2d Cir.2014Background
- Susan R. Castine was Clinton County Election Commissioner and simultaneously an elected Beekmantown Town Justice; in July 2010 she filed to run for reelection as Town Justice while serving as Election Commissioner.
- Clinton County Local Law No. 1 disqualified anyone who becomes a candidate for elective public office from appointment or continued employment with the Board of Elections.
- County officials (via the County Administrator and Legislature, after advice from the County Attorney) determined Local Law No. 1 should be enforced against Castine; she was notified and, after refusing to sign a termination form, was escorted from her office on July 19, 2010.
- Castine sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation and, under supplemental jurisdiction, sought a state-law declaratory judgment that Local Law No. 1 was void under New York law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims; the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the federal First Amendment claim but vacated and remanded the state-law claim for further proceedings (mootness and/or discretionary decline of supplemental jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation for running for office | Castine argued her candidacy was protected speech and removal from the Board was retaliatory | Defendants argued enforcement of Local Law No. 1 was a permissible means to avoid conflicts and preserve election integrity | Court held defendants prevailed under Pickering balancing; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Applicability of Pickering balancing | Castine contended her interest in candidacy outweighed disruption concerns | Defendants asserted reasonable prediction of conflict/disruption that outweighed Castine's interest | Court found the County reasonably predicted conflict, the disruption outweighed the speech value, and enforcement was justified |
| Validity/enforceability of Local Law No. 1 under state law (supplemental claim) | Castine sought declaratory relief that Local Law No. 1 violated New York law | Defendants defended the ordinance; district court had ruled for defendants | Court vacated district-court judgment and remanded for consideration of mootness and whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
| Mootness and exercise of supplemental jurisdiction | Castine urged resolution of the state-law issue in federal court | Defendants argued the claim may be moot (statute not being enforced) and district court could decline supplemental jurisdiction | Court instructed district court to consider mootness first or, alternatively, whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss without prejudice for state adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes balancing test for public-employee speech claims)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishes speech made as citizen from speech pursuant to official duties)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Sup. Ct.) (upholds reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions on ballot access/election regulation)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (Sup. Ct.) (upholds state restriction on multi-party candidacies)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (Sup. Ct.) (upholds state restrictions on candidacy and election regulation)
- Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (permits adverse action where official speech undermines agency function)
- Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (similar principle for public-safety context)
- Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.) (describes elements of employer defense under Pickering)