18 F.4th 1003
8th Cir.2021Background
- After a 2015 special election in Christian County, Brad Cole (the winning candidate) assumed office as sheriff and promptly terminated or demoted seven deputy sheriffs who had publicly supported his opponent, Keith Mills.
- The deputies (Appellants) sued Cole, Christian County, and county commissioners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for their political activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees, relying on this Court’s prior decision in Curtis v. Christian County, which held Missouri deputy sheriffs are policymaking positions for which political loyalty may be required.
- Appellants argued Cole violated clearly established First Amendment rights and that Missouri statutes (including first-responder protections and anti-retaliation provisions) precluded using political loyalty as a basis for termination.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: applying the Elrod–Branti framework and Curtis, it held Cole committed no constitutional violation (so qualified immunity applies) and therefore municipal liability cannot attach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cole violated the First Amendment by terminating/demoting deputies for supporting Cole's opponent | Cole retaliated for protected political speech/activity | Political loyalty is a valid requirement for Missouri deputy sheriffs; adverse actions lawful | No violation; Curtis controls — Missouri deputy sheriffs are policymaking positions where loyalty may be required |
| Whether Missouri statutes (e.g., first-responder protections, anti-retaliation statutes) prevent political-loyalty-based terminations | Appellants were first responders and state statutes protect their political activity, defeating loyalty defense | State statutes do not change the federal §1983 Elrod–Branti analysis; state law only informs job nature | Rejected; Curtis already analyzed Missouri law and covers deputies whether or not they meet first-responder definition |
| Whether Cole is entitled to qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established; immunity inappropriate | Cole is entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred | Qualified immunity affirmed because Appellants failed to show a constitutional violation |
| Whether Christian County and commissioners are liable | Municipality liable for Cole's actions | No municipal liability absent an underlying unconstitutional act by Cole | No municipal liability — no unconstitutional act, so municipality cannot be held liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Christian County, 963 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2020) (held Missouri deputy sheriffs are policymaking positions for which political loyalty may be necessary)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (plurality) (found patronage dismissals implicate First Amendment political-association rights)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (refined Elrod test: ask whether party affiliation/political loyalty is necessary for effective performance)
- Shockency v. Ramsey Cnty., 493 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2007) (analyzed whether deputy sheriffs were policymaking under Minnesota law; distinguished here)
- Thompson v. Shock, 852 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2017) (summarized First Amendment protections for government employees and application of Elrod–Branti)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016) (explains scope of protected conduct under First Amendment employment claims)
- Fuerst v. Clarke, 454 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2006) (explains when state statutes are relevant to federal Elrod–Branti analysis as evidence of job nature)