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)11Opinion of the Courtof protection, however, does not invest them with a rightto perform their jobs however they see fit.Our holding likewise is supported by the emphasis of ourprecedents on affording government employers sufficientdiscretion to manage their operations. Employers haveheightened interests in controlling speech made by an employeein his or her professional capacity. Official communicationshave official consequences, creating a need for substantiveconsistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensurethat their employees’ official communications are accurate,demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer’smission. Ceballos’ memo is illustrative. It demanded theattention of his supervisors and led to a heated meeting withemployees from the sheriff’s department. If Ceballos’ superiorsthought his memo was inflammatory or misguided, theyhad the authority to take proper corrective action.Ceballos’ proposed contrary rule, adopted by the Courtof Appeals, would commit state and federal courts to anew, permanent, and intrusive role, mandating judicialoversight of communications between and among governmentemployees and their superiors in the course of officialbusiness. This displacement of managerial discretionby judicial supervision finds no support in our precedents.When an employee speaks as a citizen addressing a matterof public concern, the First Amendment requires a delicatebalancing of the competing interests surrounding thespeech and its consequences. When, however, the employeeis simply performing his or her job duties, there isno warrant for a similar degree of scrutiny. To hold otherwisewould be to demand permanent judicial interventionin the conduct of governmental operations to a degreeinconsistent with sound principles of federalism and theseparation of powers.The Court of Appeals based its holding in part on whatit perceived as a doctrinal anomaly. The court suggestedit would be inconsistent to compel public employers to
12 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of the Courttolerate certain employee speech made publicly but notspeech made pursuant to an employee’s assigned duties.See 361 F. 3d, at 1176. This objection misconceives thetheoretical underpinnings of our decisions. Employees whomake public statements outside the course of performingtheir official duties retain some possibility of First Amendmentprotection because that is the kind of activity engagedin by citizens who do not work for the government.The same goes for writing a letter to a local newspaper,see Pickering, 391 U. S. 563, or discussing politics with aco-worker, see Rankin, 483 U. S. 378. When a publicemployee speaks pursuant to employment responsibilities,however, there is no relevant analogue to speech by citizenswho are not government employees.The Court of Appeals’ concern also is unfounded as apractical matter. The perceived anomaly, it should benoted, is limited in scope: It relates only to the expressionsan employee makes pursuant to his or her official responsibilities,not to statements or complaints (such as those atissue in cases like Pickering and Connick) that are madeoutside the duties of employment. If, moreover, a governmentemployer is troubled by the perceived anomaly, ithas the means at hand to avoid it. A public employer thatwishes to encourage its employees to voice concerns privatelyretains the option of instituting internal policiesand procedures that are receptive to employee criticism.Giving employees an internal forum for their speech willdiscourage them from concluding that the safest avenue ofexpression is to state their views in public.Proper application of our precedents thus leads to theconclusion that the First Amendment does not prohibitmanagerial discipline based on an employee’s expressionsmade pursuant to official responsibilities. Because Ceballos’memo falls into this category, his allegation of unconstitutionalretaliation must fail.Two final points warrant mentioning. First, as indi-
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 13: 10 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?