Since the Carver decision, panels of this court have both questioned the wisdom of Carver and sought to read it narrowly. See Murphy v. Cockrell, 505 F.3d 446, 450 (6th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e limited our holding in Carver to the question of whether the First Amendment recognized a government employee's ability to run for office as a fundamental right."); Myers v. Dean, 216 Fed.Appx. 552, 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases from other circuits in tension with Carver, but concluding that it continued to be the law of this circuit). Clearly, cases involving political speech by public employees proceed on a continuum; drawing a clear line between the simple announcement of a candidacy, which does not trigger protected political speech, and an announcement coupled with speech critical of one's opponent (and boss), which does trigger constitutional protection, is not an easy task.

Recently, a panel of this Court also questioned the validity of Carver, but nonetheless determined that where an employee is fired strictly because of the fact of that employee's rival candidacy, the First Amendment has not been violated. Myers v. Dean, 216 Fed.Appx. 552, 553-54 (6th' Cir.2007). Other Circuits have not followed Carver, rather, they have found that "[disciplinary action discouraging a candidate's bid for elective office represent[s] punishment by the state based on the content of a communicative act protected by the First Amendment."

" Carver v. Dennis, 104 F.3d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1997). See also Greenwell v. Parsley, 541 F.3d 401, 404 (6th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3618 (April 27, 2009) (sheriff's firing of deputy sheriff after learning deputy planned to run against him in election did not violate deputy's First Amendment rights); Myers v. Dean, 216 F. App'x 552, 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (county clerk's firing of deputy clerk after she ran against him in election did not violate First Amendment). See e.g. Murphy v. Cockrell, 505 F.3d 446, 450 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting in dicta that Sixth Circuit recently determined where employee fired because of rival candidacy, First Amendment not violated).

The Sixth Circuit has continued to reaffirm Carver's holding that the right to run for political office, in and of itself, is not constitutionally protected. See, e.g., Greenwell v. Parsley, 541 F.3d 401, 402-03 (6th Cir. 2008); Myers v. Dean, 216 Fed.Appx. 552, 554-55 (6th Cir. 2007). In Parsley, Judge Boyce Martin wrote a separate concurrence in which he expressed hope that the Sixth Circuit would “revisit this critical First Amendment issue en banc.”

The Sixth Circuit has continued to reaffirm Carver ’s holding that the right to run for political office, per se , is not constitutionally protected. See, e.g. , Greenwell v. Parsley , 541 F.3d 401, 402–03 (6th Cir. 2008) ; Myers v. Dean , 216 F. App'x 552, 554–55 (6th Cir. 2007). Here, although the plaintiff references a purported "right to run for office," the facts as actually alleged indicate that the case is not simply about the right to run for office but, instead, about an alleged effort by government officials to interfere with the plaintiff's campaign specifically because of the political views he espoused—his "small government, anti-corruption" platform that led him to oppose funding the new administrative offices for the HFD and pay raises for firemen.

Several courts have addressed whether an employee can be reprimanded for running against a newly-elected supervisor rather than an incumbent. For example, in Myers v. Dean, the plaintiff unsuccessfully campaigned for the position of county clerk, which was filled by the defendant after the incumbent's resignation and until a new clerk could be elected. 216 F. App'x 552, 553 (6th Cir. 2007). After the defendant won the election, he terminated the plaintiff.

One Sixth Circuit panel has even suggested that the arguments for overruling Carver are strong. See Myers v. Dean, 216 Fed. App'x 552, 554-55 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that, under the current law, a plaintiff "is protected from retaliation for supporting any candidate other than herself"). In a concurring opinion, Judge Martin has opined that Carver is based on weak precedential support and suggested that the Sixth Circuit reconsider this decision.

Id. at 853.Carver has since been followed in, Greenwell v. Parsley, 541 F.3d 401, 404 (6th Cir.2008), cert. denied558 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 64, 175 L.Ed.2d 25 (2009) (sheriff's firing of deputy after learning deputy planned to run against him in election did not violate deputy's First Amendment rights) and Myers v. Dean, 216 Fed.Appx. 552, 554 (6th Cir.2007) (county clerk's firing of deputy clerk after she ran against him in election did not violate First Amendment); Cf. Murphy v. Cockrell, 505 F.3d 446 (6th Cir.2007) (distinguishing Carver where termination by the PVA of a Deputy PVA following a rival candidacy was based upon the “employee's political expressions during her own candidacy.”).In her concurrence, Justice Abramson comprehensively surveys other federal circuit court precedent addressing a public employee's candidacy rights, and so we do not duplicate that effort in our discussion.