Law & Courts

Public Employees’ Speech Rights Curtailed

By Andrew Trotter — June 06, 2006 5 min read

Speech by government employees in the course of their job duties is not protected by the First Amendment from disciplinary action, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week, in a 5-4 decision that critics fear could muzzle “whistleblowers” who ferret out government waste and wrongdoing.

The case was being watched closely by education law experts for its potential impact on teachers in public schools and colleges. But the court’s majority drew a significant distinction between most forms of job-related speech by public workers and that which might affect academic freedom.

Speech Class

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court last week held that public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech connected to their official duties. Excerpts from the opinions address the ruling’s potential impact in the sphere of public education.

BRIC ARCHIVE

From the majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.

BRIC ARCHIVE

From the dissenting opinion of Justice David H. Souter:
[I]t stands to reason that a citizen may well place a very high value on a right to speak on the public issues he decides to make the subject of his work day after day. Would anyone doubt that a school principal evaluating the performance of teachers for promotion or pay adjustment retains a citizen’s interest in addressing the quality of teaching in the schools? (Still, the majority indicates he could be fired without First Amendment recourse for fair but unfavorable comment when the teacher under review is the superintendent’s daughter.)

SOURCE: U.S. Supreme Court

“We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in Garcetti v. Ceballos (Case No. 04-473).

“We were ecstatic [when we read that],” said Michael Simpson, the assistant general counsel of the National Education Association, who had feared a more sweeping decision might find no constitutional protection for statements teachers make in the classroom. “I do think we lived to fight another day.”

Not a Federal Case

The case originated in the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, where Richard Ceballos, a supervising prosecutor, reviewed a criminal investigation in the course of his duties and wrote a memo to his superiors detailing what he viewed as errors by investigators.

Defense lawyers in the resulting court case called Mr. Ceballos to testify about his findings. After the case was concluded, he found himself reassigned to duties and a location that he considered to be a retaliatory demotion and punishment. He sued, arguing that the memo was speech that was constitutionally protected. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, agreed and reversed a federal district court ruling. Los Angeles County appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its May 30 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the First Amendment shields speech by public employees in the course of their regular duties from discipline by their employers.

“Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job,” Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Prior Supreme Court decisions have found that government employees have free-speech protections when they speak as citizens on matters of public concern. In those cases—notably some involving schoolteachers who spoke about school district funding or operations—the court has balanced the value of employees’ speech against the impact on the operations of their agencies. (“Court Mulls Protection for Public-Employee Speech,” Oct. 19, 2005.)

In the main dissent, Justice David H. Souter said that balancing test should apply to public employees who speak in the course of their jobs.

“A public employee can wear a citizen’s hat when speaking on subjects closely tied to the employee’s own job … even when the speech is not addressed to the public at large,” he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens also wrote a short, separate dissent, while Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote his own dissent focusing on some of the speech obligations of those in the legal profession.

Justice Souter said the majority’s different treatment of public employees based on whether they speak publicly or in the course of their jobs would protect a teacher who complained to the principal about a hiring policy, because that was not part of the teacher’s job, but not a school personnel officer if he protested that the principal disapproved of hiring minority job applicants.

“This is an odd place to draw a distinction” and without justification, Justice Souter said.

One Paragraph

Justice Souter expressed fears that the court’s decision could endanger academic freedom, with “even the teaching of a public university professor” being removed from the protection of the First Amendment.

But Justice Kennedy sought to allay such fears with his comment that the court would consider a case involving “scholarship or teaching” in a different light.

“There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence,” Justice Kennedy said.

Mr. Simpson of the NEA said that the majority opinion’s mention of academic freedom was heartening, in light of some recent federal appeals court cases that have discounted the concept.

“We got a whole paragraph, and a powerful one,” he said. “It says academic freedom is not dead.”

Yet Tom Hutton, a lawyer with the National School Boards Association, in Alexandria, Va., said the references to academic freedom by Justices Kennedy and Souter probably applied only to higher education, because of the particular role that colleges and universities play in the marketplace of ideas, and not to K-12 schools.

Both education organizations had filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, the NEA on Ceballos’ side and the NSBA on the side of Los Angeles County.

But school employees also speak on non-academic matters, and Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, said of the decision, “Instances just such as this are why the UFT is pursuing a [New York state whistleblower] statute to clarify the rights of public employees.”

Alito’s Role

Mr. Simpson said the NEA was also concerned about the impact of the case on school employees who discover wrongdoing and fear that the laws in some states to protect whistleblowers are inadequate. He said he would recommend that local unions consider negotiating with districts to add protection for employees’ speech to union contracts.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case twice, once last October and again in March. The reargument came about because the arrival of Justice Alito on the court in January, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, had potential to tip the balance of votes on the closely divided case, which apparently it did, legal observers said.

A version of this article appeared in the June 07, 2006 edition of Education Week as Public Employees’ Speech Rights Curtailed

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
Equity & Diversity Webinar
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to Advance Educational Equity
Schools are welcoming students back into buildings for full-time in-person instruction in a few short weeks and now is the perfect time to take a hard look at both our practices and systems to build
Content provided by PowerMyLearning
Classroom Technology Webinar Making Big Technology Decisions: Advice for District Leaders, Principals, and Teachers
Educators at all levels make decisions that can have a huge impact on students. That’s especially true when it comes to the use of technology, which was activated like never before to help students learn
Professional Development Webinar Expand Digital Learning by Expanding Teacher Training
This discussion will examine how things have changed and offer guidance on smart, cost-effective ways to expand digital learning efforts and train teachers to maximize the use of new technologies for learning.

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 California COVID-19 Closures Infringed Private School Parents' Rights, Federal Court Rules
A federal appeals court holds that the state's closure rules for private schools were not narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests.
4 min read
Image shows a courtroom and gavel.
imaginima/E+
Law & Courts 'I Just Want to Play.' Judge Halts W. Va. Law Barring Transgender Girls From Girls' Sports
Ruling for an 11-year-old transgender girl, the judge holds that the law likely violates the equal-protection clause and Title IX.
3 min read
Image of a gavel.
Marilyn Nieves/E+
Law & Courts Praying Coach v. District That Suspended Him: What's Next in Fight Over Religious Expression
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider an earlier panel ruling that sided with the school district.
4 min read
Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, center in blue, kneels and prays after his team lost to Centralia in Bremerton, Wash., on Oct. 16, 2015. Kennedy, who was suspended for praying at midfield after games, has filed a discrimination complaint on Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2015 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission according to The Liberty Institute, a Texas-based law firm representing the coach.
Joe Kennedy, center in blue, kneels and prays after a game in October 2015 when he was the assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Wash. In a long-running legal fight, Kennedy contends he has First Amendment free-speech and free-exercise-of-religion rights to express his Christian faith while on the job. The case is likely headed back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lindsey Wasso/The Seattle Times via AP
Law & Courts Appeals Court Again Backs Transgender Student, But on Narrower Grounds Amid Signs of Rift
A federal appeals panel removed a holding for student Drew Adams based on Title IX, perhaps to ward off a rehearing by the full court.
4 min read
Image of a gavel.
Marilyn Nieves/E+