Case Explained: FinalOpinion in case# 25-1808

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 town supervisors and Ronald Wolff, dismissing James March’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Wolff’s counterclaim. The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity regarding March’s termination. Although March conceded he was a “policymaking official” subject to the *Elrod-Branti* exception for political firings, the court found that the legal standard governing whether a policymaker can be fired for speech critical of superiors or their policies is not clearly established in Seventh Circuit precedent. The court noted significant ambiguity regarding how “political” speech must be to trigger the “policymaker corollary” and whether an employer’s reasonable belief that speech was unprotected suffices when they lack actual knowledge of the speech’s content. Consequently, a reasonable official could have believed firing March under these circumstances did not violate the Constitution. Regarding Wolff’s counterclaim against March, the court ruled it failed because March did not exercise state power to initiate criminal charges and thus could not be liable for retaliatory prosecution, and Wolff failed to identify a similarly situated comparator required for his class-of-one equal protection claim. The practical consequence is that the town supervisors and Wolff face no civil liability, and the district court’s dismissal of both lawsuits stands. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.