In
LaFalce, we gave three reasons for declining to extend
Elrod to independent contractors. First, we examined the extent of the likely interference with an independent contractor's freedom to associate politically. We found that, compared to the impact on governmental employees, there was little chance that a contractor's freedom would be impinged. Second, we noted that the practical, administrative consequences of extending
Elrod's protection could be severe. “A practical consideration reinforcing our caution is that a decision upholding a First Amendment right to have one's bid considered without regard to political considerations would invite every disappointed bidder for a public contract to bring a federal suit against the government purchaser.”
Id. at 294. Third, in light of these considerations, the court concluded that it should be up to the Supreme Court to extend
Elrod. Id. at 295. The court in
Downtown Auto Parks declined to overrule
LaFalce, noting that although “
Rutan did extend First Amendment protection, [it did so] only within the context of government employment.”
Downtown Auto Parks, 938 F.2d at 710. We likewise refuse to revisit the issue. Because O'Hare is not an employee of the city, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing O'Hare's First Amendment challenge.