Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 25-1755

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-07 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit brought by James March, the former Town Administrator of Grand Chute, Wisconsin, and dismissed the counterclaim filed by Ronald Wolff. The court held that the town supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity regarding March’s claim that they fired him for speaking to state investigators about corruption allegations against Wolff. The court applied the *Elrod-Branti* doctrine, which permits government employers to fire “policymaking” employees for political reasons without violating the First Amendment. The court recognized a “policymaker corollary” extending this exception to firings based on politically disloyal speech. However, the court found that the law governing this corollary was not clearly established at the time of March’s termination in May 2023 due to significant ambiguities in Seventh Circuit precedent regarding how “political” speech must be to trigger the exception and whether an employer’s reasonable belief about the nature of a policymaker’s speech is sufficient for liability. Specifically, the court noted that it was unclear if an employer must know the specific content of a policymaker’s speech before firing them or if a reasonable mistake regarding the speech’s political nature could shield the employer. Because a reasonable official could have believed that terminating March for his interactions with law enforcement did not offend the Constitution, qualified immunity applied. Regarding Wolff’s counterclaim against March, the court affirmed summary judgment because Wolff failed to state viable claims. His retaliatory prosecution claim failed because March did not exercise “state action” or collude with prosecutors to bring charges. His class-of-one equal protection claim failed because he failed to identify a similarly situated comparator who was treated differently. As a practical consequence, the district court’s dismissal of both the retaliation lawsuit and the counterclaim stands, leaving the defendants immune from civil liability for March’s termination and Wolff without relief on his counterclaims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.