Does the investigation of violent crimes and other essential law enforcement tasks that require professional judgment and discretion so involve partisan political concerns that a deputy sheriff's support for an incumbent sheriff's opponent for a political party's nomination can justify his termination under Elrod-Branti?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), the Court recognized a patronage exemption from First Amendment protections for public employees involved in partisan policymaking. In Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), the Court recognized that public employees’ free-speech rights may be outweighed by the government’s need for operational efficiency. Petitioner Mark F. McCaffrey was terminated from his position as a deputy sheriff by Respondent Sheriff Michael L. Chapman in retaliation for McCaffrey’s support for Chapman’s opponent for the Republican nomination for sheriff, due to what McCaffrey believed to be Chapman’s official misconduct. Chapman admitted that McCaffrey’s termination was solely due to McCaffrey’s “disloyalty,” not job performance. The Fourth Circuit held that, as one of 600 “sworn deputy sheriff[s]” McCaffrey was subject to partisan termination under Elrod-Branti, even though policymaking was expressly limited to officers far above the chain-ofcommand from McCaffrey. The court disposed of McCaffrey’s free-speech claim by concluding that their Elrod-Branti holding meant that the Pickering-Connick balance tipped in favor of the government. This case presents these questions for clarification by the Court that have divided the lower courts: 1. Does the investigation of violent crimes and other essential law enforcement tasks that li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued require professional judgment and discretion so involve partisan political concerns that a deputy sheriff’s support for an incumbent sheriff’s opponent for a political party’s nomination can justify his termination under ElrodBranti? 2. Cana public employee be terminated for “disloyalty” to an elected official for having expressed opposition to his re-nomination due to that official’s misconduct when there is no evidence such expression threatened any disruption to the agency’s operations? 3. Does a conclusion that a public employee occupies a partisan policymaking position under Elrod-Branti automatically foreclose evaluation of whether that employee’s interest in speaking on a matter of public concern outweighs the government’s interest in operational efficiency under Pickering-Connick?