A judge allowed the deposition of the Will County sheriff to take place in a federal lawsuit case filed by a political rival who claims the sheriff retaliated against him.

Attorneys for Sheriff Mike Kelley had objected to his deposition until there was a ruling on a motion that could decide the 2023 case filed by Sheriff’s Deputy Jim Reilly.

In 2022, Reilly was the Republican challenger to Kelley, a Democrat who has been sheriff since 2014. Reilly is running for sheriff again this year while Kelley is not seeking another term.

Reilly’s lawsuit claims Kelley retaliated against him by denying his promotion to sergeant because of protected political speech he made during his campaign.

On Feb. 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura McNally granted a motion from Reilly’s attorneys to compel the deposition of Kelley.

“For reasons stated on the record, the motion is granted,” according to the federal court docket.

Both parties in the case plan to issue a joint status report by March 26.

Kelley’s attorneys did not want him deposed before there was a ruling on a Jan. 27 motion for judgement in Kelley’s favor and against Reilly.

In that motion, Kelley’s attorneys argued existing legal precedent permits sheriffs to make “employment decisions for political reasons” without violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

Kelley’s attorneys said Reilly’s position as a sheriff’s deputy falls under what’s known as the Elrod-Branti exception to the “general prohibition against politically-based employment decisions.”

The Elrod-Branti exception is a legal doctrine based on two U.S. Supreme Court cases from 1976 and 1980.

The exception applies where a government employer can demonstrate “party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the office involved,” Kelley’s attorneys said.

“As a result, even assuming the truth of [Reilly’s] allegations that he was passed over for promotion in retaliation for his political activity, there was no violation of the First Amendment,” Kelley’s attorneys said.

Kelley’s attorneys also argue he is immune from Reilly’s claims under a legal doctrine called qualified immunity. The doctrine protects government officials from lawsuits unless they violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

In response, Reilly’s attorneys said Kelley keeping him employed with the sheriff’s office is “plainly inconsistent” with Kelley’s assertion that Reilly’s “political loyalty is a proper qualification” for sheriff’s deputy.

Reilly’s attorneys said their client was “first on the promotion list and had earned the promotion on merit.”

“[Kelley’s] political refusal to promote Reilly could only make the department worse, not better,” Reilly’s attorneys said.

Reilly’s attorneys also argued their case can overcome the shield of qualified immunity because it is supported by “clearly established law.”