Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach

Under Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), an individual who is the “public face” of an elected official “can be fired for purely political reasons.”

Lathus appealed from the dismissal of her retaliation lawsuit. On appeal, Lathus argued that a demand from the Huntington Beach city council member who had appointed her to a city advisory board to make a public statement denouncing Antifa was compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. When the statement was not satisfactory to the councilmember, Lathus was removed from the board. Under Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), an individual who is the “public face” of an elected official “can be fired for purely political reasons.” The Court reasoned that, despite engaging in a First Amendment-protected activity, as a government official, Lathus’ First Amendment rights are not absolute. Assessing 9th Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that if "commonality of political purpose" with the council member was an appropriate requirement for Lathus’ service on the board, the lack of commonality is a proper reason for dismissal. The Court found that "commonality of political purpose" was appropriate, as the board consists of a member appointed by each councilperson, who can speak on the councilperson’s behalf and serve as their public face when advising on policy matters and soliciting public feedback. Affirmed.