## Facts

- The Indiana Supreme Court appointed James J. Krajewski as a temporary judge in Lake County, Indiana, in February 1985.
- Indiana law gave the judge authority to appoint and remove public defenders and assistant public defenders for the court.
- Steven A. Kurowski and David H. Nicholls served as assistant public defenders; they were Democrats.
- Krajewski initially asked Kurowski and Nicholls to remain, praised their performance, and increased their salaries.
- About six months later, Krajewski terminated Kurowski and Nicholls and replaced them with Republicans.
- Kurowski and Nicholls sued Krajewski under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging their termination based on political affiliation violated the First Amendment.
- Krajewski asserted absolute judicial immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits a judge to terminate assistant public defenders based on political affiliation.
2. Whether a judge’s decision to hire or fire assistant public defenders is a judicial act protected by absolute judicial immunity or an administrative act outside absolute immunity.
3. Whether qualified immunity shields the judge because the unlawfulness of patronage-based termination of assistant public defenders was not clearly established in 1985.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for Kurowski and Nicholls.
- The court held political affiliation is not an appropriate job requirement for assistant public defenders; patronage-based termination violated the First Amendment.
- The court held firing assistant public defenders is an administrative personnel decision, not a judicial act; absolute judicial immunity did not apply.
- The court held qualified immunity did not apply because the unconstitutionality of politically motivated termination of assistant public defenders was clearly established.
- The court left in place the ordered relief, including reinstatement and damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under the First Amendment, public employees may not be discharged for political affiliation unless political loyalty is an appropriate requirement for effective job performance.
- Assistant public defenders are not policymakers for whom partisan affiliation is a permissible employment criterion; their role is client representation rather than implementation of a political program.
- Absolute judicial immunity applies only to judicial acts; employment decisions about court personnel are administrative functions even when performed by a judge.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable when existing precedent clearly establishes that the challenged patronage discharge is unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that a judge violated the First Amendment by firing assistant public defenders because of party affiliation, and that the judge was not protected by absolute judicial immunity (because the act was administrative) or by qualified immunity (because the constitutional rule was clearly established).


Kurowski v. Krajewski, 848 F.2d 767 (7th Cir. 1988)