← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford (New Bedford, SCOTUS, 1892)

District · Decided Teaching/Historical
Court
State Court
Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin
Decided
Jan 6, 1892
Judge (CL)
Joseph R. Goodwin
Filed (CL)
May 6, 2015
CL Status
Terminated

Case Overview

McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 (1892), is the origin of public-employee free-speech law. New Bedford fired police officer John McAuliffe for political activity that violated a department rule barring officers from soliciting money for political purposes. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., then on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, upheld the firing with a line that framed the law for decades: the officer 'may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.'

BrynoDC Coverage 4 videos


The Law · How the Case Works

The Issue

• Does a municipal regulation restricting a police officer's political activities as a condition of employment violate his constitutional rights? • Does a public employee retain constitutional protections against conditions imposed on the privilege of public employment?

The Rules

McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216 (1892) Right-Privilege Distinction in Public Employment

A person has no constitutional right to public employment; the government may condition employment on the waiver of rights that could not be directly abridged, because holding office is a privilege and not a right.

U.S. Const. amend. I First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Political Association

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble - raised by McAuliffe as protecting his political solicitation activities.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process and Equal Protection

No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law - at issue as to whether dismissal from public employment implicated a protected liberty or property interest.

The Conclusion

Holmes's 'right-privilege' rule governed for generations, then fell. The court held that a government job is a privilege the state may condition as it likes, so an employee who takes the job effectively agrees to give up free-speech rights on the government's terms. The Supreme Court abandoned that reasoning in Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), holding that public employees keep their First Amendment rights and that courts must balance those rights against the government's interests. McAuliffe is where this tracker's public-employee and government-contractor speech line begins, the rule that Pickering and Umbehr later replaced with a balancing test.

Court -
FiledMay 6, 2015
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin
CL StatusTerminated
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

No Supreme Court data for this case.

State Court TMR-a3f79453 Jul 26, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support