Robert Curtis v. Christian County, Missouri, 963 F.3d 777

Christian County held a special sheriff election in 2015; Brad Cole won and Keith Mills (an internal Sheriff’s Office employee) was his opponent. Deputies Robert Curtis and Timothy Bruce publicly campaigned for Mills.
After Cole assumed office, he fired Curtis (a sergeant) and Bruce (a detective) within days; Cole knew they had supported Mills.
Curtis and Bruce sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment wrongful discharge for political activity; the district court denied Cole qualified immunity, treating the terminations as patronage dismissals under Elrod/Branti.
Missouri law: sheriffs are elected, may appoint deputies who “hold office at the pleasure of the sheriff,” deputies have the powers of the sheriff, and deputies may be terminated with procedural notice/hearing but remain effectively at-will.
Eighth Circuit precedent distinguishes (1) Elrod/Branti (pure patronage) and (2) Pickering/Connick (speech balancing/intermixed cases); prior circuits have applied Elrod/Branti to deputy sheriffs where state law makes deputies the sheriff’s alter ego.
The panel concluded that under Missouri law deputy sheriffs occupy policymaking/confidential roles for which political loyalty is an appropriate job requirement, so Cole’s terminations did not violate the First Amendment and Cole is entitled to qualified immunity; Christian County is likewise entitled to judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination for supporting an opponent violated the First Amendment	Curtis/Bruce: fired for protected political activity; First Amendment prohibits patronage firing	Cole: political loyalty is an appropriate requirement for deputy sheriffs under Missouri law	Held for defendant: no violation because deputies are policymaking positions where loyalty is appropriate
Whether Elrod/Branti or Pickering/Connick governs	Plaintiffs: terminations were political patronage -> Elrod/Branti favors plaintiffs	Defendants: even if Elrod/Branti applies, Missouri law makes deputies alter egos so Elrod/Branti allows dismissal	Held: Elrod/Branti applies and, under Missouri law, Elrod/Branti permits dismissal
Whether Missouri deputy sheriffs are policymaking/confidential positions	Plaintiffs: deputies’ actual conduct and some speech could require Pickering balancing	Defendants: state law grants deputies sheriff-like powers, at-will status, and sheriff liability, making loyalty appropriate	Held: as a matter of law deputies under Missouri law are akin to policymakers/alter egos; loyalty is an appropriate requirement
Qualified immunity and municipal liability (Christian County)	Plaintiffs: constitutional violation by sheriff -> county liable as final policymaker	Defendants: Cole did not violate constitutional rights; county liability fails	Held: Cole entitled to qualified immunity; Christian County entitled to summary judgment on municipal claims

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (patronage dismissals presumptively unconstitutional)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (political loyalty exception where position requires it)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (balancing public-employee speech interests)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (public concern threshold and balancing framework)
Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir.: deputies may be dismissed for political reasons where state law makes them sheriff’s alter ego)
Terry v. Cook, 866 F.2d 373 (11th Cir.: deputy sheriffs as alter egos; political loyalty appropriate)
Shockency v. Ramsey Cty., 493 F.3d 941 (8th Cir.: state law controls whether Elrod/Branti applies; classified service prevents patronage dismissal)
Nord v. Walsh Cty., 757 F.3d 734 (8th Cir.: analyzing deputy status under state law in Elrod/Branti context)
Thompson v. Shock, 852 F.3d 786 (8th Cir.: distinguishes Elrod/Branti and Pickering/Connick tests)
Ezell v. Wynn, 802 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.: categorical analysis of deputy powers under state law)