Connection lost
Server error
Rankin v. McPherson Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A clerical employee in a constable’s office was fired for saying she hoped the next assassination attempt on the President would succeed. The Supreme Court held the firing violated her First Amendment rights because her speech addressed a matter of public concern and did not disrupt the workplace.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a public employee’s speech on a matter of public concern is protected, even if offensive, if it does not disrupt the employer’s operations. The employee’s role (e.g., non-policymaking, no public contact) is a critical factor in the constitutional balancing test.
Rankin v. McPherson Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ardith McPherson, a probationary, non-commissioned clerical employee in a Texas Constable’s office, performed data entry duties. Her role involved no law enforcement, policymaking, or public contact. Upon hearing a radio report of an assassination attempt on President Reagan, McPherson had a private conversation with a co-worker. She expressed disapproval of the President’s policies and concluded, “If they go for him again, I hope they get him.” The remark was overheard by another deputy, who reported it to Constable Rankin. After McPherson admitted to making the statement, Rankin terminated her employment. Rankin testified that he fired her based on the content of the statement itself, not because it caused any disruption to the office’s operations. McPherson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging her discharge violated her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment prohibit the discharge of a public employee for making a statement on a matter of public concern when the employee’s interests in the expression outweigh the public employer’s interest in promoting the efficiency of its services?
Yes. The Court held that McPherson’s discharge violated the First Amendment. Her Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment prohibit the discharge of a public employee for making a statement on a matter of public concern when the employee’s interests in the expression outweigh the public employer’s interest in promoting the efficiency of its services?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the *Pickering* balancing test for public employee speech, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Legal Rule
The determination of whether a public employer has properly discharged an employee Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mo
Legal Analysis
The Court applied the two-part balancing test from *Pickering* and *Connick*. First, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A public employee’s speech on a matter of public concern is
