Term: 2005
Docket: 04-473
Gil Garcetti, Et Al. v. Richard Ceballos
- Pro
04-473 GARCETTI V. CEBALLOS DECISION BELOW: 361 F3d 1168 ORIGINAL ARGUMENT 10/12/2005 http://www.court.gov/arguments/term2005/04- 473.pdf ORDER OF 2/17/06: THIS CASE IS RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR FOR REARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 2/28/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be cloaked with First Amendment protection simply because it touches on a matter of public concern, or should First Amendment protection also require the speech to be engaged in "as a citizen", in accordance with this Court's holdings in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)? 2. Is immediate review by this Court necessary to address the growing inter-circuit conflict on the question of whether a public employee's purely job-related speech is constitutionally protected, especially where the lack of uniformity dramatically impacts the ability of all public employers to effectively manage their respective agencies? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 02-55418
The U.S. Supreme Court case Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos (2005) revolved around the issue of First Amendment protections for government employees when speaking out in the course of their official duties. Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County, claimed he was demoted and denied a promotion after writing memos that criticized the legitimacy of a warrant used by county sheriff's deputies. He argued this retaliation violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. However, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Ceballos stating that while public employees have certain rights to speak as citizens on matters of public concern without fear of retribution from their employer; these protections do not extend to statements made pursuant to their professional responsibilities or during work-related tasks because such actions are part-and-parcel with an employee’s job functions rather than expressions as private citizens.
In the dissenting opinion for Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that public employees should not lose their First Amendment rights when speaking on matters of public concern in the course of their job duties. He contended that a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless still a citizen and thus entitled to voice his or her opinions without fear of retribution from superiors or colleagues at work. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling could discourage whistleblowers from coming forward with information about governmental misconduct out of fear they would be unprotected against retaliation by their employers.
