There’s a difference between being required to perform the normal functions of the government and being required to espouse a political philosophy. The Hatch Act makes it clear that you can have a political opinion, but that it occurs on your own time. So the rationale of the court is “nobody is allowed to use their office for politics” and “by putting words in government employee mouths, their right to free speech is being abridged.”

5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1): “An employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not — (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

There’s a lot more after that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7323

▲

terminalshort a day ago | parent [-]

How can your job be to both implement policy set by the politicians currently in office (presumably decided by their political philosophy) without regard to your own opinions and also to not espouse a political philosophy?

	▲	anonymouskimmer 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The same way that Eisenhower served under the Democrats FDR and Truman then was elected to the presidency as a Republican? It's a job. With particular job duties. You do those duties regardless of who's in charge. It's just that under one administration those duties are oriented to a particular larger purpose, while under another administration they are oriented to another particular larger purpose. That still doesn't change the vast majority of jobs, and for those few it does, aren't most of them political appointments already?
	▲	thunderfork 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Implementing a policy and personally advocating (in speech) for a political party line are two different things