Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
Primary Holding
The First Amendment does not protect a government employee from disciplinary action based on speech made pursuant to their official duties.
In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, a government lawyer named Richard Ceballos raised concerns about inaccuracies in a legal document related to a criminal case. After he reported these issues, he faced disciplinary action from his employer. This case is important because it established that government employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech made as part of their job duties, meaning they can be punished for speaking out about work-related issues. For consumers, this ruling can affect their rights if they work for the government and want to report problems or misconduct. If a government employee speaks up about issues at work, they may not be protected from consequences, which could influence how openly they discuss concerns that might affect public safety or justice. This case is relevant if someone is in a similar situation where they are considering reporting issues at their government job.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
A sheriff in the Los Angeles District Attorney's office misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. When Ceballos, who worked in the office, discovered the misrepresentation, he told the prosecutors who were working on the case. They refused to dismiss the case, even though they agreed that the affidavit was dubious. Ceballos took his information to defense counsel, who subpoenaed him to testify. He later brought a claim against his employer on the grounds that he had suffered from retaliation for cooperating with the defense, which he argued was protected by the First Amendment, The trial court ruled that qualified immunity protected the district attorneys, but the Ninth Circuit found that it did not apply because Ceballos had been engaging in activity covered by the First Amendment protections on speech regarding matters of public concern.
Whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s official duties.
The judgment is reversed.
There are many fewer protections for employees in the workplace, and especially in a government workplace, than for ordinary individuals in a public setting. This is because the speech could undermine the effective operation of the government in its performance of public duties.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- October 12, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Kennedy
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007)
Consumer LostThe deputies' actions in ordering innocent residents out of bed during the execution of a valid search warrant, without knowledge of their presence or the fact that the suspects had moved out, constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Westfall Act grants federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising from acts performed within the scope of their official duties, and the Attorney General's certification of such scope is conclusive for purposes of removal to federal court, even if the employee denies the alleged tortious conduct.
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006)
Consumer LostIn a Bivens action alleging retaliation for speech, a plaintiff must allege and prove the absence of probable cause to support the underlying criminal charge in order to state an actionable violation of the First Amendment.
Whitman v. Department of Transportation, 547 U.S. 512 (2006)
Mixed OutcomeThe Court held that the jurisdiction of federal courts to review employment-related claims of federal employees is not conferred by 5 U.S.C. §7121(a)(1), but such jurisdiction is not divested by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), allowing for potential claims to be pursued under 28 U.S.C. §1331 if they arise under the Constitution or federal law.