Lopez-Erquicia v. Weyne-Roig, 846 F.3d 480

López was a career AFSI Director at Puerto Rico's Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC); earlier she had held trust appointments but by 2013 was restored to the career Director role.
After a change in administration, Commissioner Weyne eliminated the AFSI Division and reassigned López to a Principal Attorney role with the same pay but substantially different duties.
López sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the reassignment and related conduct were politically motivated in violation of the First Amendment; she sought damages against Weyne.
The district court denied qualified immunity to Weyne on the § 1983 damages claim, treating as uncontested that party affiliation is not a proper job requirement for López’s position.
On interlocutory appeal the First Circuit considered whether a reasonable official could have believed the First Amendment did not bar politically motivated removal/demotion of López, i.e., whether qualified immunity applied.
The First Circuit reversed, holding that a reasonable official could have believed López’s duties placed her outside clearly established First Amendment protection and thus Weyne was entitled to qualified immunity for the damages claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether López’s AFSI Director position was protected from political removal under the First Amendment (merits)	López: duties were managerial, policymaking, and advisory but not political; thus protected	Weyne: position functioned as a political/trust-like post allowing affiliation-based removal	Treated as uncontested by parties; court analyzed functions and found question close but did not definitively resolve merits because not necessary for immunity ruling
Whether a reasonable official could have believed political removal/demotion of López was lawful (qualified immunity / reasonableness)	López: law clearly protected nonpolicy career employees; removal for politics is barred	Weyne: precedents left room for reasonable belief that López’s advisory/policymaking functions could place her within the Branti/Elrod exception	Held for Weyne: reasonable official could have believed López’s role fell outside clearly established protection, so qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages
Whether denial of qualified immunity should be reversed on interlocutory appeal	López: denial was erroneous only if law clearly established protection	Weyne: interlocutory review appropriate and immunity applies	Court reversed district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (recognizes exception for political patronage dismissals where affiliation is an appropriate requirement)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (refines test for when party affiliation is an appropriate requirement)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law requirement for qualified immunity)
López-Quiñones v. P.R. Nat'l Guard, 526 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2008) (two-part qualified immunity test in patronage cases)