Nord v. Walsh County, et al., No. 12-3249 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the County and the sheriff after he was terminated as deputy sheriff. The court concluded, under the Pickering/Connick balancing test, that at least some of plaintiff's campaign speech does not merit First Amendment protection; that even if plaintiff's speech was fully protected by the Constitution, the sheriff could have reasonably believed that the speech would be at least potentially damaging and disruptive of the discipline and harmony of and among coworkers in the sheriff's office and detrimental to the close working relationships and personal loyalties necessary for an effective and trusted local policing operation; considering North Dakota law and well-established federal and state jurisprudence, the sheriff could have logically and rationally believed that his decision to terminate plaintiff was well within his duties as a public official; and that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity to shield him from any liability. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the sheriff's motion for summary judgment.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Civil Case - qualified immunity. This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a First Amendment claim in which Nord was terminated as a deputy sheriff by the sheriff after the sheriff defeated the deputy sheriff in an election. The sheriff conceded a First Amendment violation. Notwithstanding the concession, the court must engage in a Pickering/Connick balancing test to determine the contours of whether the asserted rights were clearly established. In conducting the balancing, sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because some of Nord's campaign speech did not merit First Amendment protection, sheriff could have reasonably believed speech could damage operation of sheriff's office, and sheriff reasonably believed he had authority to terminate. Judge Shepherd dissents.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.