[Clips] Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right

[R.A. Hettinga]

--- begin forwarded text


  Delivered-To: rah at shipwright.com
  Delivered-To: clips at philodox.com
  Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:13:14 -0400
  To: Philodox Clips List <clips at philodox.com>
  From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
  Subject: [Clips] Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right
  Reply-To: rah at philodox.com
  Sender: clips-bounces at philodox.com


<http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-05-30T210703Z_01_N30454508_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-WHISTLEBLOWERS.xml>



  Court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right

  Tue May 30, 2006 5:07 PM ET


  By James Vicini

  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on
  Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech
  rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible
  misconduct at work.

  By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against a California prosecutor who
  said he was demoted, denied a promotion and transferred for trying to
  expose a lie by a county sheriff's deputy in a search-warrant affidavit.

  Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S.
  Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no
  First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing
  job-required duties.

  Writing for the court majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said there is
  protection for whistle-blowers in federal and state laws and rules of
  conduct for government attorneys.

  The case had been closely watched for its affect on the at-work,
  free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees. About 100
  cases involving internal communications are brought each year in federal
  court.

  Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "In an age of
  excessive government secrecy, the Supreme Court has made it easier to
  engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing."

  Other ACLU officials predicted the ruling will deter government employees
  from speaking out about wrongdoing for fear of losing their jobs.

  Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos had sued his
  employer for retaliating against him for exercising his free-speech rights
  when he reported suspected wrongdoing in a memo to senior officials in his
  department.

  The justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that Ceballos'
  action was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution because he
  was speaking on an issue of public concern.

  Kennedy said exposing government inefficiency and misconduct was a matter
  of considerable significance, and that various measures have been adopted
  to protect employees and provide checks on supervisors who would order
  unlawful or inappropriate actions.

  "When public employees made statement pursuant to their official duties,
  the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes,
  and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer
  discipline," he wrote.

  JUDICIAL INTRUSION IN THE WORKPLACE?

  Kennedy said a ruling for Ceballos would result in a "new, permanent and
  intrusive role" for the courts in overseeing communications between
  government workers and their superiors, replacing managerial discretion
  with judicial supervision.

  He was joined by the court's conservatives -- Chief Justice John Roberts
  and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

  The court's liberals, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader
  Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissented.

  Stevens wrote, "The notion that there is a categorical difference between
  speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one's employment is
  quite wrong." He called the majority ruling "misguided."

  Souter wrote in a separate dissent that government employees who speak out
  about official wrongdoing should be eligible for First Amendment protection
  against reprisals.

  --
  -----------------
  R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
  The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
  44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
  "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
  [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
  experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
  _______________________________________________
  Clips mailing list
  Clips at philodox.com
  http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'