927 F.3d 575
1st Cir.2019Background
- Mark Eves, then Speaker of Maine House, was hired as President of Good Will‑Hinckley (GWH) with a contract starting July 1, 2015; GWH administers the statutorily created public "Center for Excellence for At‑risk Students" through the charter school MeANS and received discretionary state funding.
- Governor Paul LePage publicly criticized Eves and threatened to withhold $1,060,000 in discretionary state funding to GWH after learning of Eves's selection; the Department of Education froze an initial quarterly payment pending the enacted budget.
- GWH's board terminated Eves on June 24, 2015, before his start date; the complaint alleges the firing was caused by LePage’s threats and that LePage knew withholding funds would jeopardize GWH’s viability and additional private grants.
- Eves sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation, political‑affiliation discrimination, associational and procedural‑due‑process violations, and a state law tort; he seeks damages (now limited to political‑affiliation claim) and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- The district court dismissed; a divided panel affirmed; the en banc First Circuit assumed the complaint’s facts but held LePage entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable governor could have believed the GWH presidency was a policymaking position to which political affiliation was relevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LePage violated the First Amendment by coercing GWH to fire Eves via threatened withholding of discretionary funds | LePage’s threats coerced GWH and caused Eves’s termination in retaliation for political affiliation and speech | LePage claims his conduct was lawful discretion over funding and/or protected by immunity; position was policymaking so affiliation was relevant | Court did not decide step (1) in majority; viewed facts as potentially violative but resolved on immunity grounds for policymaker exception applicability |
| Whether the GWH presidency is a "policymaking" position allowing political‑affiliation dismissals | Eves: private nonprofit role lacks public policymaker immunity protection; threats to a private recipient of funds are actionable | LePage: statutory role administering a public Center and discretionary funding made the post policymaking and affiliation‑relevant | Court: reasonable governor could conclude GWH President was a policymaker given statutory public role, MeANS implementation, and discretionary funding control; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether clearly established law put LePage on notice that his conduct was unlawful | Eves: cases like Umbehr/O'Hare and §1983 principles should have warned LePage his threats were unconstitutional | LePage: no controlling precedent made the policymaker exception inapplicable here; legal question was debatable | Court: law not clearly established in this factbound context; qualified immunity bars damages claim |
| Whether declaratory/injunctive and state law claims survive | Eves: seeks declaratory relief and state tort recovery | LePage: claims moot or barred by immunity/other defenses | Court: equitable relief dismissed as moot; state law claim dismissed; damages claim for political affiliation dismissed on qualified immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (supersedes analysis on qualified immunity standard)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly‑established‑law standard)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (political‑patronage limitations and policymaker exception origin)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (policymaker exception: affiliation permissible when appropriate for effective performance)
- Board of County Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (First Amendment limits on government contracting/funding retaliation)
- O'Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (similar contractor‑speech protection against retaliatory exclusion)
- Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (limits on funding conditions implicating speech)
- Prisma Zona Exploratoria de P.R., Inc. v. Calderón, 310 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (applying policymaker analysis to a private entity receiving public funds)
- El Día, Inc. v. Rosselló, 165 F.3d 106 (1st Cir.) (withholding discretionary government advertising as constitutionally suspect)