The Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to political patronage today, ruling that government employers generally may not base hiring, transfer and promotion decisions on someone's party affiliation. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said refusing to hire, transfer or promote people for politically partisan reasons in most cases violates their constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and association. The court said partisanship may play a role in such employment decisions only when political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for carrying out a job, such as a high-level policy adviser. ``Unless these patronage practices are narrowly tailored to further vital government interests, we must conclude that they impermissibly encroach on First Amendment freedoms,'' Justice William J. Brennan wrote for the court. The decision reinstates a lawsuit by three Illinois residents against Gov. James Thompson and Republican leaders in the state. Its sweeping prohibitions apply as well to federal and local government employers. In a landmark 1976 ruling and a 1980 sequel, the high court significantly weakened the political patronage system, sometimes called the ``spoils system.'' The rulings prohibited government employers from firing anyone _ even some policy-making and confidential government workers _ solely because of their political party unless party loyalty is a requirement for effective performance. But those decisions dealt only with firings. Before today, the court never had said partisanship can play no role in hiring, transfers and promotions as well. The court also struck down patronage powers of government employers in laying off and rehiring public employees. In other action, the court: _ Expanded police powers by allowing them to search a home when they are let in by someone they mistakenly believe has authority to consent to a warrantless search. In a 6-3 ruling in a case from Chicago, the justices said evidence from such searches may be used in court as long as police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe the person who granted them access shared authority over the premises with the owner. _ Reinstated a former wrestling coach's lawsuit against an Ohio newspaper, ruling that allegedly libelous statements in the case can be treated as assertions of fact, not merely opinion. But the 7-2 ruling did not appear to reduce significantly the free-speech protections from libel law that opinion traditionally has been given by the nation's courts. For the first time, the court said the Constitution's First Amendment does not require a special, separate privilege for stated opinions. The decision makes clear, however, that the fact-opinion distinction will remain important in libel cases, and courts may continue to throw out lawsuits that seek damages for someone's stated opinions. _ Generally barred states and energy consumers from bringing federal antitrust suits against energys producers accused of conspiring to fix prices. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said only direct purchasers of energy _ in this case utility companies _ may file such suits. A federal appeals court had upheld the Illinois patronage policy in hiring, transfers and promotions but banned such considerations in layoffs and rehirings. It said layoffs are too similar to firings. Brennan said employee loyalty to government policies can be ensured without widespread patronage. ``A government's interest in securing employees who will loyally implement its policies can be adequately served by choosing or dismissing certain high-level employees on the basis of their political views,'' he said. Brennan was joined by Justices Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented. In a dissenting opinion, Scalia wrote, ``Today, the court makes its constitutional civil-service reform absolute, extending to all decisions regarding government employment.'' In the Illinois patronage case, two men and a woman who said their job status suffered because they did not vote in Republican primaries or give money to the party sued the governor, the state GOP and the heads of several state agencies. Cynthia Rutan said she repeatedly was denied promotions to supervisory positions in the state Rehabilitative Services Department because she did not support Republican candidates. Franklin Taylor, an equipment operator, said he was denied an Illinois Transportation Department transfer to another county because party officials opposed it. James Moore said the state Corrections Department has refused to hire him since 1978 because he could not get the backing of key GOP leaders. The three sued for more than $1 billion in damages. Their suit also seeks to shift control of the state employment system to a court-appointed federal receiver. During oral arguments before the justices last January, their lawyer, Mary Lee Leahy of Springfield, Ill., said Thompson's office has controlled all new hires since 1980. In all, 62,000 civil service jobs are under the governor's jurisdiction. She previously had submitted to the court a form used to screen state employees who seek a promotion and live in Sangamon County. The form asks employees to declare how they, or in some cases their parents, voted in primary elections. It also asks whether the person would be willing to work for Republicans during an election. Lawyers for Thompson and state GOP leaders argued that hiring political allies stimulates good government because the employee is likely to appreciate the job and, in turn, serve the public well. Today's decision means all the lawsuits remain alive. Several groups from the state, including Independent Voters of Illinois and Common Cause-Illinois, argued in a ``friend-of-the-court'' brief, ``A politically conditioned employment system inhibits the free functioning of democracy, rather than advancing it, since it seeks to assist only a single favored political party and to dissuade all other political activity.'' In a similar brief, lawyers for the AFL-CIO said, ``Allocating governmental resources purely in the interest of partisan politics grants the favored party an advantage that threatens the legitimacy of our governmental structure.'' Lawyers for the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, however, urged the justices to uphold the Illinois system. ``The prospect of employment is a significant incentive to political effort (and) opportunities to implement the administration's democratic mandate are enhanced significantly by patronage hiring,'' the Puerto Rico lawyers contended. ``These are compelling state interests which outweigh the possible First Amendment impairment resulting from patronage hiring.'' No other state filed a brief in support of the Illinois system. The cases are Rutan vs. Illinois Republican Party, 88-1872, and Frech vs. Rutan, 88-2074.
