Good News for the Bush Admin

rhadamanthus · May 31, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/30/national/w132119D75.DTL&type=politics

High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

(05-30) 14:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Supporters said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.

The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the arrival of Alito.

A year ago, O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools. The current case was argued in October but not resolved before her retirement in late January.

A new argument session was held in March with Alito on the bench. He joined the court's other conservatives in Tuesday's decision, which split along traditional conservative-liberal lines.

Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.

Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.

"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.

Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."

Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if O'Connor were still on the court. "Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.

Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos, but on different grounds.

The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.

"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.

Employment attorney Dan Westman said that Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.

Ceballos said in a telephone interview that "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said in a statement that the ruling "allows public employers to conduct the people's business without undue disruption and without turning routine personnel decisions into federal cases."

The court's decision immediately prompted calls for Congress to strengthen protections for workers.

Kennedy said that government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."

The case is Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473.
Click to expand...

rhadamanthus · May 31, 2006

Hrrmmm. Having read a little more deeply now, I think this may not be too ridiculous a decision...

There is no such thing as First Amendment protection for government employees on their job or related to knowledge they've gained on the job. There never has been. Ask anyone who has been in the military.

"Whistleblower" is a very specific case of protected speech. This guy wasn't a whistleblower. He didn't follow the proper channels and actively helped the opposition of the office where he was employed.

Thoughts?

Garcetti v. Ceballos
Docket Number: 04-473
Abstract

Argued:

October 12, 2005
Facts of the Case

Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos then told the defense he believed the affidavit contained false statements, and defense counsel subpoenaed him to testify. Seeking damages in federal district court, Ceballos alleged that D.A.s in the office retaliated against him for his cooperation with the defense, which he argued was protected by the First Amendment. The district court ruled that the district attorneys were protected by qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and ruled for Ceballos, holding that qualified immunity was not available to the defendants because Ceballos had been engaged in speech that addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected by the First Amendment.
Question Presented

1. Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be protected by the First Amendment simply because it touched on a matter of public concern, or must the speech also be engaged in "as a citizen?" 2. Was immediate review by the Supreme Court necessary to address the growing inter-circuit conflict on the question of whether a public employee's purely job-related speech is constitutionally protected, especially where the lack of uniformity dramatically impacted the ability of all public employers to effectively manage their respective agencies?
Click to expand...

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1833/

A_3PO · May 31, 2006

The only good news for (or about) the Bush Admin is Jan 09.

giddyup · May 31, 2006

Damn you, rhad! I just read the thread title and because of that my sarcasm detector broke.... again!

Sishir Chang · May 31, 2006

This is a complex case and its not clear to me what the implications of it are. My understanding is that this doesn't mean whistle blowers aren't protected just that they aren't protected when it comes to speech particularly related to their job. So for instance if someone's who's job is client relations knows that his company has engaged in shady accounting practices he can still expose that but he can't do so in official communications to clients.

That's my reading and I'm wondering what some of the CF posters in the legal profession think about it.

MadMax? Sam Fisher?

rhadamanthus · May 31, 2006

Sishir Chang said:

This is a complex case and its not clear to me what the implications of it are. My understanding is that this doesn't mean whistle blowers aren't protected just that they aren't protected when it comes to speech particularly related to their job. So for instance if someone's who's job is client relations knows that his company has engaged in shady accounting practices he can still expose that but he can't do so in official communications to clients.

That's my reading and I'm wondering what some of the CF posters in the legal profession think about it.

MadMax? Sam Fisher?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm beginning to think. The first amendment does not protect "b****ing at the office". However, it does seem to imply (albeit, perhaps unintentionally) that feeding complaints/whistleblowing through "proper channels" is being discouraged.

EDIT: Sorry about your sarcasm detector, giddy.

CreepyFloyd · Jun 1, 2006

here's some more good news for the bush admin:

Iraq's new ambassador to the US said yesterday US forces cold-bloodedly shot and killed his cousin last year in Haditha. It is the same town where marines are alleged to have gone on a rampage, killing 24 civilians. Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie’s accusations — aired just hours after President George Bush welcomed him at the White House — came as the US military faced growing pressure to complete its investigation into the Haditha deaths

http://media.putfile.com/IRAQ-AMBASSADOR

Forums

Good News for the Bush Admin

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

A_3PO Member

giddyup Contributing Member

Sishir Chang Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

CreepyFloyd Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!