Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway outside the White House on Jan. 9. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Kellyanne Conway, with the apparent support of President Trump, has chosen to essentially ignore the Hatch Act [“Trump says he won’t fire Conway,” news, June 15]. The spin master would have us believe that the constitutional right to free speech supersedes the Hatch Act. However, the constitutionality of the Hatch Act has been upheld several times by the courts, including the Supreme Court. Is this yet another constitutional crisis?

While this new crisis is sorted out, my question is whether Ms. Conway’s actions have set a contemporary precedent so that federal employees now are clearly permitted to engage in political activities while on the job. Some clarification would be helpful with a national election almost upon us.

David Sommers, Kensington

During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump famously observed that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose the support of his followers. By refusing to discipline White House counselor Kellyanne Conway for repeated and flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, the president has demonstrated that anyone can get away with anything so long as he or she is sufficiently important and loyal to Mr. Trump.

Thomas J. McIntyre, Arlington