Text
WASHINGTON, May 30 ? The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that public employees' free-speech rights are protected when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, but not when they speak out in the course of their official duties.
Today's ruling, involving a deputy Los Angeles district attorney who contended that he had been denied a promotion for challenging the legitimacy of a search warrant, came in a case that has been closely watched not just by public workers but by those who have worried that it could discourage whistle-blowers from speaking out about government misconduct.
"We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
The ruling noted the enormous variety of factual situations involving relationships between public employers and their employees, and it suggested that the particular facts of a case must be closely examined.
In this case, the Los Angeles deputy prosecutor, Richard Ceballos, complained to his bosses in early 2000 that after being alerted by a defense lawyer, he had found "serious misrepresentations" in an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant.
Discussions with his superiors were heated, and a trial court rejected challenges to the warrant. In the aftermath, Mr. Ceballos contended, he was reassigned and denied a promotion. He filed an employee grievance, which was denied based on a finding that he had not suffered any retaliation, despite his claim to the contrary.
Mr. Ceballos took his case to federal district court, which threw it out after accepting his employer's argument that the actions Mr. Ceballos complained about were explainable by legitimate staffing needs. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court, concluding that Mr. Ceballos's free-speech rights had indeed been violated.
In reversing the Ninth Circuit today, Justice Kennedy noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings "that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment." On the other hand, he wrote, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."
The controlling factor in this case, Justice Kennedy wrote, was that Mr. Ceballos was acting purely in an official capacity when he complained internally about the search warrant. "Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do," Justice Kennedy wrote. "He did not act as a citizen by writing it."
Joining the majority ruling were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Dissenting in three separate opinions were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
"The notion that there is a categorical difference between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment is quite wrong," Justice Stevens wrote.
And Justice Souter asserted that "private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to public health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy, and when they do public employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection."
It's good to know one can't backstab their employer then come back and file lawsuits so easily. Welcome to the new age of Justices Roberts and Alito and common sense in the nation's judiciary.
We can also tack another case on the lengthy list of 9th circuit mistakes.
WASHINGTON, May 30 ? The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that public employees' free-speech rights are protected when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, but not when they speak out in the course of their official duties.
Today's ruling, involving a deputy Los Angeles district attorney who contended that he had been denied a promotion for challenging the legitimacy of a search warrant, came in a case that has been closely watched not just by public workers but by those who have worried that it could discourage whistle-blowers from speaking out about government misconduct.
"We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.
The ruling noted the enormous variety of factual situations involving relationships between public employers and their employees, and it suggested that the particular facts of a case must be closely examined.
In this case, the Los Angeles deputy prosecutor, Richard Ceballos, complained to his bosses in early 2000 that after being alerted by a defense lawyer, he had found "serious misrepresentations" in an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant.
Discussions with his superiors were heated, and a trial court rejected challenges to the warrant. In the aftermath, Mr. Ceballos contended, he was reassigned and denied a promotion. He filed an employee grievance, which was denied based on a finding that he had not suffered any retaliation, despite his claim to the contrary.
Mr. Ceballos took his case to federal district court, which threw it out after accepting his employer's argument that the actions Mr. Ceballos complained about were explainable by legitimate staffing needs. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court, concluding that Mr. Ceballos's free-speech rights had indeed been violated.
In reversing the Ninth Circuit today, Justice Kennedy noted that the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings "that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment." On the other hand, he wrote, "When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom."
The controlling factor in this case, Justice Kennedy wrote, was that Mr. Ceballos was acting purely in an official capacity when he complained internally about the search warrant. "Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is part of what he was employed to do," Justice Kennedy wrote. "He did not act as a citizen by writing it."
Joining the majority ruling were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Dissenting in three separate opinions were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
"The notion that there is a categorical difference between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment is quite wrong," Justice Stevens wrote.
And Justice Souter asserted that "private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to public health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy, and when they do public employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection."
It's good to know one can't backstab their employer then come back and file lawsuits so easily. Welcome to the new age of Justices Roberts and Alito and common sense in the nation's judiciary.
We can also tack another case on the lengthy list of 9th circuit mistakes.
Facebook
Twitter