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) 1SOUTER, J., dissentingSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES_________________No. 04–473_________________GIL GARCETTI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD CEBALLOS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT[May 30, 2006] JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS andJUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.The Court holds 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.” Ante, at 9. Irespectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that agovernment employer has substantial interests in effectuatingits chosen policy and objectives, and in demandingcompetence, honesty, and judgment from employees whospeak for it in doing their work. But I would hold thatprivate and public interests in addressing official wrongdoingand threats to health and safety can outweigh the government’sstake in the efficient implementation of policy,and when they do public employees who speak on thesematters in the course of their duties should be eligible toclaim First Amendment protection.IOpen speech by a private citizen on a matter of publicimportance lies at the heart of expression subject to protectionby the First Amendment. See, e.g., Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 377 (1997).At the other extreme, a statement by a government em-
2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSOUTER, J., dissentingployee complaining about nothing beyond treatment underpersonnel rules raises no greater claim to constitutionalprotection against retaliatory response than the remarksof a private employee. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138,147 (1983). In between these points lies a public employee’sspeech unwelcome to the government but on asignificant public issue. Such an employee speaking as acitizen, that is, with a citizen’s interest, is protected fromreprisal unless the statements are too damaging to thegovernment’s capacity to conduct public business to bejustified by any individual or public benefit thought toflow from the statements. Pickering v. Board of Ed. ofTownship High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563,568 (1968). Entitlement to protection is thus not absolute.This significant, albeit qualified, protection of publicemployees who irritate the government is understood toflow from the First Amendment, in part, because a governmentpaycheck does nothing to eliminate the value toan individual of speaking on public matters, and there isno good reason for categorically discounting a speaker’sinterest in commenting on a matter of public concern justbecause the government employs him. Still, the FirstAmendment safeguard rests on something more, being thevalue to the public of receiving the opinions and informationthat a public employee may disclose. “Governmentemployees are often in the best position to know what ailsthe agencies for which they work.” Waters v. Churchill,511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994).The reason that protection of employee speech is qualifiedis that it can distract co-workers and supervisors fromtheir tasks at hand and thwart the implementation oflegitimate policy, the risks of which grow greater thecloser the employee’s speech gets to commenting on hisown workplace and responsibilities. It is one thing for anoffice clerk to say there is waste in government and quiteanother to charge that his own department pays full-time
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 and 14: 10 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of t
Page 19: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSSTEVENS, J.,
Page 23 and 24: 4 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?