Heffernan v. City of Paterson

The moment I read the name of this case, I couldn't help but think of my middle school science teacher, Ms. Napper. She had a strange habit of constantly trying to relate what we were learning about to her pet cows, which she always referred to as heifers (not the same spelling, but you get the point). Now, Ms. Nappers comparisons always seemed to be going somewhere, but could never really seem to hit the target completely; you could say the same about this case. Heffernan v. City of Paterson has seem to have left the Supreme Court in the same state my middle school science class was after each one of Ms. Nappers stories: simply confused.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court after bouncing around and changing rulings in the smaller courts. Jeffrey Heffernan, a detective at the Paterson Police Department in New Jersey back in 2006, was demoted to patrol officer one day after an alleged "overt" involvement in a political campaign for the next Mayor of the city of Paterson. This "overt" involvement? Heffernan was spotted picking up a yard sign of a candidate his boss didn't support in the election. It's important to add that Heffernan isn't even a resident of Paterson, meaning he can't even vote in this election (he says he was picking up the sign for his mother). Now, I know you're probably thinking "How does this dude picking up a sign have anything to do with the First Amendment?", or maybe you were thinking "I want to hear about these stories about heifers", but that's not what we're talking about, so sorry. The confusion from this case is whether or not this is actually a First Amendment case. Justice Antonin Scalia said that "The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association." Scalia followed up with, "Your client was neither speaking nor associating. So how could he possibly have a cause of action under the first amendment?" From what I understand from this case, however, is that Heffernan isn't saying that his First Amendment right was denied, but that it would have been denied if he was actually able to vote in the election. 

Pretty much this entire case is a giant hypothetical problem that the court has the pleasure of figuring out, and as it stands, they're about as confused as I was back in middle school when Ms. Napper tried to relate one of her heifers to the rock cycle. I never figured that connection out, but hopefully the Court can figure out this case, because the way I see it, Heffernan was demoted for no real reason, which is as legal as Ms. Napper torturing a group of preteen kids with stories about cows. Sorry, I mean heifers.