Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412

Background

Jeffrey Heffernan, a Paterson, NJ police officer, picked up a campaign yard sign for his bedridden mother and briefly spoke with campaign staff while off duty.
Other officers observed him with the sign; supervisors (appointed by the incumbent mayor) concluded he had overtly supported the mayoral opponent, Lawrence Spagnola.
The next day Heffernan was demoted from detective to patrol officer for perceived political involvement.
Heffernan sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing the demotion was retaliation for (what supervisors believed was) protected political activity.
District Court and Third Circuit held no violation because Heffernan had not in fact engaged in protected speech; the Third Circuit required actual (not merely perceived) exercise of constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an employee can challenge demotion motivated by the employer’s desire to prevent protected political activity even if the employer was mistaken about the employee’s conduct; remanded for further factfinding about any neutral departmental policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1983 protects an employee demoted for employer’s mistaken belief that employee engaged in protected political activity	Heffernan: employer’s motive to suppress protected activity violates First Amendment even if based on factual mistake	City: no constitutional deprivation because Heffernan did not actually engage in protected speech; §1983 requires an actual violation	Court: Employer motive matters; employee may sue when demotion was motivated by desire to prevent protected political activity, even if based on mistake
Whether Waters v. Churchill requires different treatment when mistake is that speech was protected rather than unprotected	Heffernan: Waters’ focus on employer’s reasonable understanding supports liability when employer mistakenly believes employee engaged in protected activity	City: Waters permits relief only when employee actually engaged in protected speech; mistake cannot create a constitutional violation	Court: Waters’ focus on employer motive supports plaintiff; the Government’s motive (as reasonably understood) controls, so mistake does not defeat claim
Whether imposing liability for employer’s factual mistake imposes undue burdens	Heffernan: employers won’t face undue costs because plaintiff bears burden to prove improper motive	City: expands §1983 to attempted or nonviolation harms and wrongly creates liability absent actual constitutional infringement	Court: plaintiff must prove motive; adopting liability here tracks First Amendment’s focus on government action and addresses same chilling harm
Whether a neutral departmental policy barring overt political involvement might justify the demotion	Heffernan: assumes policy (if any) is unconstitutional and exceptions don’t apply	City: points to possible neutral policy forbidding overt political involvement by officers	Court: assumed violation for decision but remanded for lower courts to determine existence and constitutionality of any neutral policy

Key Cases Cited

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (court first asks whether employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech doctrine and threshold inquiry)
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public-employee speech against government interests)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (employer’s reasonable understanding of facts and motive relevant when speech’s protected status is disputed)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (politically motivated dismissals impermissible)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (limits on political-affiliation-based employment decisions)
Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (neutral policies may limit partisan activity if appropriately tailored)
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (protects against patronage-based employment actions)
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (overbreadth concerns where chill on protected expression is likely)