Eves v. LePage
842 F.3d 133
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Mark Eves, Speaker of the Maine House and a term-limited legislator, accepted a two-year employment contract to become president of Good Will-Hinckley (GWH), which operates the MeANS charter school that depends in part on discretionary state grants.
- Governor Paul LePage learned of the hire, vocally objected (including public statements and a handwritten note), and told state and private actors he would withhold discretionary funding to GWH if it retained Eves; the Department of Education froze a forthcoming discretionary payment.
- Facing likely loss of critical funding and pressure from private funders, GWH rescinded Eves’s offer and terminated the employment agreement before his start date; board members later indicated the Governor’s intervention caused the termination.
- Eves sued LePage under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (claims for retaliation affecting political affiliation, free speech, association, and due process) and asserted a state-law tort claim for intentional interference with contract; the district court dismissed all claims and entered judgment for the Governor.
- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds (holding it was not beyond debate that LePage’s conduct clearly violated the First Amendment) and vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of the MTCA claim, directing dismissal without prejudice so state courts may decide state-law immunity and separation-of-powers questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for § 1983 damages (First Amendment retaliation) | Eves: LePage used his control of discretionary state funds to coerce a private employer to fire a political opponent, violating clearly established First Amendment rights. | LePage: his communications and withholding decisions were within gubernatorial discretion; no clearly established precedent put him on notice such actions were unconstitutional. | Court: Affirmed dismissal — qualified immunity bars damages because pre-existing law did not place the constitutional question "beyond debate." |
| Injunctive and declaratory relief (prospective relief) | Eves: seeks injunction to stop future threats/interference and declaratory relief that LePage’s conduct was unlawful. | LePage: equitable claims are moot or non-justiciable; plaintiff lacks standing and irreparable harm. | Court: Requests related to GWH are moot; other prospective relief lacks credible threat and equitable prerequisites; dismissal affirmed. |
| State-law tort claim (intentional interference with contract) and state immunity | Eves: MTCA claim valid against LePage for intentional interference. | LePage: state statutory immunity for discretionary acts bars the MTCA claim. | Court: Vacated district court’s merits dismissal; remanded to dismiss MTCA claim without prejudice (declining supplemental jurisdiction so state courts can address Maine-law issues). |
| Whether LePage’s conduct actually violated the First Amendment | Eves: conduct was unconstitutional retaliation regardless of third-party actor (GWH). | LePage: disputed; argued government speech and broad discretion over budget/funding. | Court: Did not decide constitutionality on the merits—only held that law was not clearly established such that damages are barred by qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified-immunity standard requires law be "beyond debate")
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech pursuant to duties receives limited First Amendment protection)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (conditioning government benefits on constitutionally protected interests gives rise to a claim)
- Mihos v. Swift, 358 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2004) (refusal to grant qualified immunity where governor directly removed public appointee for protected speech/vote)
- El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello, 165 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 1999) (withholding discretionary government advertising/funding as retaliation violated First Amendment and informed clearly-established-law inquiry)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials from suit unless conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights)