In Finnegan v. Leu (1982) 456 U.S. 431 102 S. Ct. 1867, 72 L. Ed. 2d 239, a union president discharged his appointed business agents. The agents filed suit, claiming a violation of the LMRDA. In holding that the LMRDA did not protect the discharged agents, the Supreme Court held that: "The LMRDA's overriding objective was to ensure that unions would be democratically governed, and responsive to the will of the union membership as expressed in open, periodic elections. Far from being inconsistent with this purpose, the ability of an elected union president to select his own administrators is an integral part of ensuring a union administration's responsiveness to the mandate of the union election.. . . Nothing in the LMRDA evinces a congressional intent to alter the traditional pattern which would permit a union president under these circumstances to appoint agents of his choice to carry out his policies. . . in enacting Title I of the LMRDA, Congress simply was not concerned with perpetuating appointed union employees in office at the expense of an elected president's freedom to choose his own staff. Rather, its concerns were with promoting union democracy, and protecting the rights of union members from arbitrary action by the union or its officers." ( Id. at pp. 441-442 102 S. Ct. at p. 1873.) The United States Supreme Court in Finnegan v. Leu (1982) 456 U.S. 431 102 S. Ct. 1867, 72 L. Ed. 2d 239, indicated the union had an unlimited right to terminate confidential employees. In Finnegan the court held that under the LMRDA union officials had unlimited rights to terminate management and policymaking employees, such as union business agents, and added in a footnote that the court left open "the question whether a different result might obtain in a case involving nonpolicymaking and nonconfidential employees." It could thus be inferred from such language that, as with policymaking employees, confidential employees are also subject to termination without limitation by elected union officials because they also potentially can thwart implementation of the union's policies and objectives. In Finnegan the United States Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff union business agents' contention that they were wrongfully terminated in violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The union terminated them following an election of the union president whom they had not supported. The Finnegan court held that the union business agents could not successfully assert that their discharge violated the LMRDA's guarantees of free speech because union officials have a paramount interest in selecting and retaining employees who are trusted to work efficiently and diligently in carrying out the union's policies.