# Branti v. Finkel

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 31, 1980 · 445 U.S. 507

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427846

## Case

- **Full name:** BRANTI v. FINKEL Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 31, 1980
- **Citations:** 445 U.S. 507; 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 91; 100 S. Ct. 1287; 63 L. Ed. 2d 574; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 4
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** Stewart'S, Stevens, Burger, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 1,674 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427846

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[v]oters with little information about individuals seeking office traditionally have relied upon party affiliation as a guide to choosing among candidates,” but a “decline in party stability” has left Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-PL-371 | March 6, 2024…
- finding that the policymaker exception applied where it was demonstrated that party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for the performance of the position, and that “the ultimate inquiry . . . is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an…
- recognizing, for example, that the governor of a state “may appropriately believe that the official duties of various assistants who help him write speeches, explain his views to the press, or communicate the legislature cannot be performed effectively unless those persons sha…
- stating that when determining whether political affilia *927 tion is an appropriate basis for demotion, “the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved”
- concluding that facts that public defenders may have made policies pertaining to their clients and were privy to confidential client information had no bearing on this analysis because such policymaking and confidential information did not pertain to partisan political concerns

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
I joined the judgment of the Court in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347 , because it is my view that, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, “a nonpolicymaking, nonconfiden-tial government employee can [not] be discharged . . . from a job that he is satisfactorily performing upon the sole ground of his political beliefs.” Id., at 375 . That judgment in my opinion does not control the present case for the simple reason *521 that the respondents here clearly are not “nonconfidential” employees.
The respondents in the present case are lawyers, and the employment positions involved are those of assistants in the office of the Rockland County Public Defender. The analogy to a firm of lawyers in the private sector is a close one, and I can think of few occupational relationships more instinct with the necessity of mutual confidence and trust than that kind of professional association.
I believe that the petitioner, upon his appointment as Public Defender, was not constitutionally compelled to enter such a close professional and necessarily confidential association with the respondents if he did not wish to do so. *
Contrary to repeated statements in the Court’s opinion, the present case does not involve “private political beliefs,” but public affiliation with a political party.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427846. Public record. Not legal advice.