Law & Courts

Court Mulls Protection for Public-Employee Speech

By Andrew Trotter — October 18, 2005 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A case testing the limits of the First Amendment’s protections for speech by government employees came before the U.S. Supreme Court last week, as the justices considered whether extending constitutional protection to job-related speech would interfere with the operations of public agencies, including school districts.

The Oct. 12 arguments in Garcetti v. Ceballos (Case No. 04-473) concerned an assistant prosecutor in Los Angeles County, Richard Ceballos, who claimed that his superiors retaliated against him in 2000 after he alleged in a memorandum that a county sheriff’s deputy had significantly misrepresented the facts on an affidavit to obtain a search warrant. Mr. Ceballos later provided the memorandum to a defense attorney in the case, and testified at the hearing on a motion to challenge the search warrant.

See Also

View the related item,

Read the related story,

Justices Seek U.S. Views on Expert Fees Under IDEA

After being allegedly demoted and ill-treated by his supervisors afterward, Mr. Ceballos sued, arguing that he was entitled to First Amendment protection for his speech. The case follows a line of Supreme Court cases on government employees’ speech that started with a landmark 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205. In that case, the court held that a teacher who was speaking as a citizen on an issue of public concern was protected by the First Amendment from retaliation.

But another major decision, in the 1983 case of Connick v. Myers, held that government employees’ speech on matters of personal concern, such as typical workplace gripes, would not subject an employer to First Amendment scrutiny.

The question in the new case is whether speech that is part of the employee’s job is subject to First Amendment protection. That category can cover such speech as whistleblowing on alleged wrongdoing by employees, such as in Mr. Ceballos’ case, as well as potentially other areas of job-related speech.

A Professor’s Lectures

The National Education Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the employee’s side, saying that “to teach is to communicate—often on matters of the greatest public importance and controversy.” Barring a public employee’s on-the-job speech from ever having First Amendment protection, the 2.7 million-member teachers’ union said, “would have a devastating impact on teachers.”

But the National School Boards Association, in a brief filed on the side of Los Angeles County, said it was important for schools to be able to control their employees’ speech, especially regarding the curriculum.

“Schools should be able to discipline or terminate employees who refuse to execute their responsibilities in the manner prescribed by the school board without undue fear of First Amendment claims based on speech made in fulfilling the employees’ job duties, that happens to implicate a matter of public concern,” the NSBA’s brief says.

In the Los Angeles County case, a federal district court held in favor of the district attorney’s office, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision. The appeals court held that Mr. Ceballos’ speech in his memo was protected because it “addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption.”

The county argues that an employee is acting as the state when he speaks during the performance of his duties, in contrast to speech outside of those duties, as a citizen. The Bush administration also argued on the county’s side last week, arguing that a public employee has no First Amendment interest in speech expressed as part of his job duties.

Those arguments appeared to resonate with several Supreme Court justices last week.

Cindy S. Lee, the lawyer for Los Angeles County, argued that Mr. Ceballos’ case did not fall under Pickering because “job-required speech is not protected by the First Amendment, so there’s no need to go into the balancing.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Ms. Lee whether a “public-university professor who is fired for the content of his lectures” would have a First Amendment case.

“Certainly that is part of his job, right?” the chief justice said.

Ms. Lee said such an employee would not be entitled “presumptively” to constitutional protection. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that such on-the-job speech by an individual could be viewed as speech by the government itself.

“If you pay the piper, you get to call the tune. In this case, it was just in-sourced [to its own employee],” he said in an exchange with Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Mr. Ceballos’ lawyer.

Ms. Robin-Vergeer replied, of her client: “He spoke to the government, not as the government.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed especially concerned about the effect that a ruling in favor of Mr. Ceballos would have on government workplaces. He said to Ms. Robin-Vergeer: “What you’re saying is that the First Amendment has an official function inside the office. … The First Amendment isn’t about policing the workplace.”

Ms. Robin-Vergeer replied that it is important for employees to be able to speak about government agencies because they, more than others, have critical knowledge about their operations. She mentioned the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an example of an agency that would benefit in its operations from the speech of whistleblowers.

Internal Channels

But Chief Justice Roberts said that submitting every case to First Amendment scrutiny in court would be expensive and interfere with employment-related responsibilities of the government.

Some justices appeared concerned, however, about the Bush administration’s broad position that there was no First Amendment protection for on-the-job speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it was odd that an employee might have protection for raising concerns about his agency’s operations in an outside speech as a citizen, while having no protection for raising concerns within internal channels.

A decision in the case is expected by next July.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the October 19, 2005 edition of Education Week as Court Mulls Protection for Public-Employee Speech

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Assessment Webinar
Reflections on Evidence-Based Grading Practices: What We Learned for Next Year
Get real insights on evidence-based grading from K-12 leaders.
Content provided by Otus
Mathematics Webinar How to Build Students’ Confidence in Math
Learn practical tips to build confident mathematicians in our webinar.
Student Achievement K-12 Essentials Forum How to Build and Scale Effective K-12 State & District Tutoring Programs
Join this free virtual summit to learn from education leaders, policymakers, and industry experts on the topic of high-impact tutoring.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Faces Big Test on Religious Students' Opt-Outs From LGBTQ+ Books
The justices will weigh whether a school district must allow parents with religious objections to LGBTQ+ books to excuse their children.
9 min read
Jeff Roman works on homework with his son.
Jeff Roman, a parent who has religious concerns about LGBTQ+ storybooks used in the Montgomery County, Md., school district, works on homework with his son.
Courtesy of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Law & Courts Another Court Lets the Trump Admin. Keep Teacher-Training Grants Frozen
A federal appeals court overturned a lower court's order that had temporarily restored millions of dollars in terminated grant funds.
4 min read
Young Female Teacher Giving a Lecture During an Adult Education Course in School, Having a Conversation with a Older Female with Laptop. Diverse Mature Students Doing Textbook Exercises in Classroom
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin. to End Teacher-Prep Grants
The high court, over three justices' dissent, granted the administration's request to remove a lower court's block on ending the grants.
5 min read
Erin Huff, a kindergarten teacher at Waverly Elementary School, works with, from left to right, Ava Turner, a 2nd grader, Benton Ryan, 1st grade, and 3rd grader Haven Green, on estimating measurements using mini marshmallows in Waverly, Ill., on Dec. 18, 2019. Huff, a 24-year-old teacher in her third year, says relatively low pay, stress and workload often discourage young people from pursuing teaching degrees, leading to a current shortage of classroom teachers in Illinois. A nonprofit teacher-training program is using a $750,000 addition to the state budget to speed up certification to address a rampant teacher shortage.
Erin Huff, a 24-year-old kindergarten teacher at Waverly Elementary in Illinois, pictured here on Dec. 18, 2019, says low pay, high stress, and heavy workloads often discourage young people from entering teacher preparation programs. The U.S. Supreme Court on April 4, 2025, allowed the Trump administration to immediately terminate two federal teacher-preparation grant programs.
John O'Connor/AP
Law & Courts Groups Sue Over Trump's Cuts to Education Department Research Arm
This suit seeks the restoration of Institute of Education Sciences staff and contracts abruptly canceled by the Trump administration.
3 min read
Supporters gather outside the U.S. Department of Education in Washington to applaud Education Department employees as they depart their offices for the final time on Friday, March 28, 2025. The rally brought together education supporters, students, parents, and former employees to honor the departing staff as they arrived in 30-minute intervals to collect their belongings.
Supporters gather outside the U.S. Department of Education in Washington to applaud Education Department employees as they depart their offices for the final time on Friday, March 28, 2025. Two organizations representing researchers are suing the department in an attempt to restore the agency's data and research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.
Moriah Ratner for Education Week