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)3Opinion of the Courtrecounted his observations about the affidavit, but thetrial court rejected the challenge to the warrant.Ceballos claims that in the aftermath of these events hewas subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions.The actions included reassignment from his calendar deputyposition to a trial deputy position, transfer to anothercourthouse, and denial of a promotion. Ceballos initiatedan employment grievance, but the grievance was deniedbased on a finding that he had not suffered any retaliation.Unsatisfied, Ceballos sued in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California, asserting, asrelevant here, a claim under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C.§1983. He alleged petitioners violated the First and FourteenthAmendments by retaliating against him based onhis memo of March 2.Petitioners responded that no retaliatory actions weretaken against Ceballos and that all the actions of which hecomplained were explained by legitimate reasons such asstaffing needs. They further contended that, in any event,Ceballos’ memo was not protected speech under the FirstAmendment. Petitioners moved for summary judgment,and the District Court granted their motion. Noting thatCeballos wrote his memo pursuant to his employmentduties, the court concluded he was not entitled to FirstAmendment protection for the memo’s contents. It held inthe alternative that even if Ceballos’ speech was constitutionallyprotected, petitioners had qualified immunitybecause the rights Ceballos asserted were not clearlyestablished.The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed,holding that “Ceballos’s allegations of wrongdoing in thememorandum constitute protected speech under the FirstAmendment.” 361 F. 3d 1168, 1173 (2004). In reachingits conclusion the court looked to the First Amendmentanalysis set forth in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of TownshipHigh School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563 (1968), and
4 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of the CourtConnick, 461 U. S. 138. Connick instructs courts to begin byconsidering whether the expressions in question were madeby the speaker “as a citizen upon matters of public concern.”See id., at 146–147. The Court of Appeals determined thatCeballos’ memo, which recited what he thought to be governmentalmisconduct, was “inherently a matter of publicconcern.” 361 F. 3d, at 1174. The court did not, however,consider whether the speech was made in Ceballos’ capacityas a citizen. Rather, it relied on Circuit precedent rejectingthe idea that “a public employee’s speech is deprived of FirstAmendment protection whenever those views are expressed,to government workers or others, pursuant to an employmentresponsibility.” Id., at 1174–1175 (citing cases includingRoth v. Veteran’s Admin. of Govt. of United States, 856F. 2d 1401 (CA9 1988)).Having concluded that Ceballos’ memo satisfied thepublic-concern requirement, the Court of Appeals proceededto balance Ceballos’ interest in his speech againsthis supervisors’ interest in responding to it. See Pickering,supra, at 568. The court struck the balance in Ceballos’favor, noting that petitioners “failed even to suggest disruptionor inefficiency in the workings of the DistrictAttorney’s Office” as a result of the memo. See 361 F. 3d,at 1180. The court further concluded that Ceballos’ FirstAmendment rights were clearly established and thatpetitioners’ actions were not objectively reasonable. Seeid., at 1181–1182.Judge O’Scannlain specially concurred. Agreeing thatthe panel’s decision was compelled by Circuit precedent,he nevertheless concluded Circuit law should be revisitedand overruled. See id., at 1185. Judge O’Scannlain emphasizedthe distinction “between speech offered by apublic employee acting as an employee carrying out his orher ordinary job duties and that spoken by an employeeacting as a citizen expressing his or her personal views ondisputed matters of public import.” Id., at 1187. In his
Page 1 and 2: (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 20051S
Page 3 and 4: Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)3Syll
Page 5: 2 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 9 and 10: 6 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 11 and 12: 8 GARCETTI v. CEBALLOSOpinion of th
Page 13 and 14: 10 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?