Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not shield their communications from employer discipline.
Facts:
- Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County, was informed by a defense attorney that an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant in a pending case was inaccurate.
- Ceballos conducted an independent investigation into the affidavit's claims, which included visiting the location described.
- Based on his investigation, Ceballos concluded that the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations about a driveway and the visibility of tire tracks.
- Ceballos communicated his findings to his supervisors, Carol Najera and Frank Sundstedt, both orally and in writing.
- He prepared a disposition memorandum detailing his concerns and recommending the dismissal of the criminal case, which he submitted to his supervisors.
- Subsequently, a heated meeting was held involving Ceballos, his supervisors, and members of the sheriff's department, where Ceballos was criticized.
- Despite Ceballos's concerns, his supervisors decided to proceed with the prosecution.
- Following these events, Ceballos was reassigned to a different position, transferred to another courthouse, and denied a promotion.
Procedural Posture:
- Ceballos filed an employment grievance, which was denied.
- Ceballos sued his supervisors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the supervisors, holding that Ceballos's memo was not protected speech because it was written pursuant to his employment duties.
- Ceballos, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, appellee, reversed the district court, holding that the memo was protected speech under the First Amendment.
- The supervisors, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment protect a government employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s official duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not protect their speech from employer discipline. The Court distinguished between speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, which receives First Amendment protection under the Pickering balancing test, and speech made as part of an employee's professional responsibilities. The controlling factor is that Ceballos's memo was written as part of his duties as a prosecutor. Such speech, which owes its existence to the employee's job, is considered the employer's work product. The government, as an employer, must retain control over its employees' official communications to ensure efficiency, accuracy, and the promotion of its mission. To hold otherwise would commit courts to an intrusive and permanent role in overseeing the internal operations of government agencies.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, in some circumstances. The majority's categorical rule that such speech is 'never' protected is incorrect; the proper answer is 'sometimes.' The Court's holding creates a perverse incentive for employees to voice their concerns publicly before reporting them to superiors internally. Citing Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., the dissent argues that the distinction between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of employment is wrong, as constitutional protection should not hinge on whether the words fall within a job description.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. The private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing can outweigh the government's interest in efficiency, meaning employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible for First Amendment protection. The majority's categorical rule is an 'odd place to draw a distinction' because the public value of employee speech is often greatest when the employee is speaking on a subject they know intimately due to their job. Instead of a blanket exclusion, courts should use the Pickering balancing test, modified to require that the employee spoke on a matter of unusual importance (e.g., official dishonesty, serious wrongdoing, or threats to health and safety) and did so responsibly.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes, in limited circumstances. Neither the majority's absolute bar nor Justice Souter's broad balancing approach is correct. The First Amendment should provide protection where there is a special need for it and a lower risk of judicial interference with government management. Such conditions are met in this case due to two special factors: 1) the speech was professional speech by a lawyer, who is bound by professional canons of ethics, and 2) the speech was related to a prosecutor's constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose exculpatory evidence. In such circumstances, the Pickering balancing test is the appropriate standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the First Amendment protections for public employees by establishing a new threshold inquiry. It created a distinction between speaking as a citizen and speaking pursuant to official duties, making the latter category of speech unprotected. This ruling gives public employers substantially more authority to discipline employees for their on-the-job speech, even if that speech involves matters of great public concern like government misconduct. The case effectively removes such speech from the Pickering balancing test, potentially chilling internal whistleblowing and forcing employees to speak out publicly to gain constitutional protection. Future litigation in this area now centers on the 'practical' definition of an employee's 'official duties.'
Unlock the full brief for Garcetti v. Ceballos