Citation network
Rutan Vs. Republican Party
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Rutan v. RepublicanSearch
-
Party - 497 U.S. 62 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Rutan v. RepublicanSearch
-
Party, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) Rutan v. RepublicanSearch
-
upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Noting that Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
U. S. 347 , and Branti v. FinkelSearch
-
i.e., when they would lead reasonable persons to resign. The court concluded, based on Wygant v. JacksonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
rely on a basis that infringes their constitutionally protected interests to deny them these valuable benefits. Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
the opinion of the Court. To the victor belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained. Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
U. S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. FinkelSearch
-
Id., 427 U.S. at 427 U. S. 355 (citing Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
emphasized. 427 U.S. at 427 U. S. 356 . Both the plurality and the concurrence drew support from Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
could not command directly.' Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
West Virginia Bd. of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
Decades of decisions by this Court belie such a claim. We premised Torcaso v. WatkinsSearch
-
Id. at 367 U. S. 496 . In Keyishian v. BoardSearch
-
because it premised employment on an unconstitutional restriction of political belief and association. In Elfbrandt v. RussellSearch
-
Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
the government from accomplishing indirectly. See Perry, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 597 (citing Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
Ibid., citing Wygant v. JacksonSearch
-
Therefore, for purposes of our review, we must assume that petitioners' well-pleaded allegations are true. Berkovitz v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 507 (1980), also refined the exception created by Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
Respondents' reliance on Johnson v. TransportationSearch
-
rights because he had no claim of right to employment in the first place, that argument is foreclosed by Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
use of patronage practices immunizes them from constitutional scrutiny. Third, he assumes that the decisions in Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
these propositions. Illinois State Employees Union, Council 34, Am. Fed of State, County, and Municipal Emp., AFL-CIO v. LewisSearch
-
reason. The Supreme Court has plainly identified that distinction on many occasions, most recently in Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
F.2d at 568, n. 14. See, e.g., Brown v. BoardSearch
-
by the fact that the 'spoils system has been entrenched in American history for almost two hundred years.' Alomar v. DwyerSearch
-
no constitutional right to his job, there can be no valid constitutional objection to his summary removal. See Bailey v. PageSearch
-
Adler v. BoardSearch
-
Keyishian v. BoardSearch
-
constitutional law subsequent to the Supreme Court's unequivocal repudiation of the line of cases ending with Bailey v. RichardsonSearch
-
and Adler v. BoardSearch
-
F.2d at 568 (footnotes and citations omitted). With respect to Justice SCALIA's view that, until Elrod v. BurnsSearch
-
federal civil service employees from taking an active part in partisan political activities. United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
Oklahoma could not require its employees to profess their loyalty by denying past association with Communists. Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
cook could be summarily excluded from a naval gun factory. Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO v. McElroySearch
-
to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.' Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
The holding in Pickering was a natural sequel to Mr. Justice Frankfurter's comment in dissent in Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
right to public employment, but nevertheless may not be dismissed for exercising his First Amendment rights. Perry v. SindermannSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial