04-473 - Garcetti v. Ceballos - Supreme Court of the United States

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$J1L(lO~ \~ ~~ - Center for Investigative Reporting$

Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)9Opinion of the Courtviews inside his office, rather than publicly, is not dispositive.Employees in some cases may receive First Amendmentprotection for expressions made at work. See, e.g.,Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439 U. S.410, 414 (1979). Many citizens do much of their talkinginside their respective workplaces, and it would not servethe goal of treating public employees like “any member ofthe general public,” Pickering, 391 U. S., at 573, to holdthat all speech within the office is automatically exposedto restriction.The memo concerned the subject matter of Ceballos’ employment,but this, too, is nondispositive. The First Amendmentprotects some expressions related to the speaker’s job.See, e.g., ibid.; Givhan, supra, at 414. As the Court noted inPickering: “Teachers are, as a class, the members of a communitymost likely to have informed and definite opinions asto how funds allotted to the operation of the schools shouldbe spent. Accordingly, it is essential that they be able tospeak out freely on such questions without fear of retaliatorydismissal.” 391 U. S., at 572. The same is true of manyother categories of public employees.The controlling factor in Ceballos’ case is that his expressionswere made pursuant to his duties as a calendardeputy. See Brief for Respondent 4 (“Ceballos does notdispute that he prepared the memorandum ‘pursuant tohis duties as a prosecutor’”). That consideration—the factthat Ceballos spoke as a prosecutor fulfilling a responsibilityto advise his supervisor about how best to proceed witha pending case—distinguishes Ceballos’ case from those inwhich the First Amendment provides protection againstdiscipline. We hold that when public employees makestatements pursuant to their official duties, the employeesare not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes,and the Constitution does not insulate their communicationsfrom employer discipline.Ceballos wrote his disposition memo because that is
10 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of the Courtpart of what he, as a calendar deputy, was employed to do.It is immaterial whether he experienced some personalgratification from writing the memo; his First Amendmentrights do not depend on his job satisfaction. The significantpoint is that the memo was written pursuant toCeballos’ official duties. Restricting speech that owes itsexistence to a public employee’s professional responsibilitiesdoes not infringe any liberties the employee mighthave enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects theexercise of employer control over what the employer itselfhas commissioned or created. Cf. Rosenberger v. Rectorand Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995)(“[W]hen the government appropriates public funds topromote a particular policy of its own it is entitled to saywhat it wishes”). Contrast, for example, the expressionsmade by the speaker in Pickering, whose letter to thenewspaper had no official significance and bore similaritiesto letters submitted by numerous citizens every day.Ceballos did not act as a citizen when he went aboutconducting his daily professional activities, such as supervisingattorneys, investigating charges, and preparingfilings. In the same way he did not speak as a citizen bywriting a memo that addressed the proper disposition of apending criminal case. When he went to work and performedthe tasks he was paid to perform, Ceballos acted asa government employee. The fact that his duties sometimesrequired him to speak or write does not meanhis supervisors were prohibited from evaluating hisperformance.This result is consistent with our precedents’ attentionto the potential societal value of employee speech. Seesupra, at 7–8. Refusing to recognize First Amendmentclaims based on government employees’ work product doesnot prevent them from participating in public debate. Theemployees retain the prospect of constitutional protectionfor their contributions to the civic discourse. This prospect
Page 1 and 2: (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 20051S
Page 3 and 4: Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)3Syll
Page 5 and 6: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 11: 8 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 15 and 16: 12 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of t
Page 17 and 18: 14 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of t
Page 19 and 20: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSTEVENS, J.,
Page 21 and 22: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSOUTER, J., d
Page 29 and 30: 10 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSOUTER, J.,
Page 39 and 40: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d
Page 41 and 42: 4 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d
Page 43: 6 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSBREYER, J., d

04-473 - Garcetti v. Ceballos - Supreme Court of the United States

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?