The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that free speech rights do not
apply to government employees who speak out against official
misconduct as part of their jobs, a decision some say could
contribute to abuse of power by discouraging whistle-blowers from
coming forward.
In a 5-4 decision, with new Justice Samuel Alito casting the
deciding vote, the high court ruled that government whistle-blowers
can be disciplined for what they say as part of their jobs, but
they are protected by the First Amendment when they speak out as
citizens on issues of civic discourse.
University of California officials said the ruling would not
affect UC employees because the UC already has policies to protect
whistle-blowers.
The case involved Richard Ceballos, a Los Angeles County
prosecutor who said he was denied a promotion and demoted after he
wrote a memo accusing his superiors of lying in an affidavit for a
search warrant.
Ceballos filed a lawsuit claiming his employer’s actions
were unconstitutional because they violated his right to free
speech.
The Supreme Court decision overturned an appeals court decision
in Ceballos’ favor.
In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy
said government officials have the right to monitor the accuracy
and quality of their employees’ work.
“Supervisors must ensure that their employees’
official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment,
and promote the employer’s mission,” Kennedy wrote.
UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh said the reason
Ceballos’ First Amendment rights were not protected in this
case is because part of his job was to determine whether law
enforcement was doing its job properly.
“If an employee is supposed to, as part of his job, say
something or write something, his superiors have the right to
consider what he says as part of an evaluation,” he said.
Volokh added that once Ceballos’ superiors determined his
accusations to be inaccurate, they were within their rights to
discipline him.
But representatives of national government watchdog
organizations said the ruling could discourage government employees
from reporting illegal activity.
“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,” said Steven Shapiro,
national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Jennifer Ward, a spokeswoman for the UC, said the ruling will
not affect whistle-blowers within the university.
“Nothing in our policy is going to change,” she
said. “We already have protections in place, so this
shouldn’t discourage any whistle-blowers.”
The UC’s whistle-blower policy outlines a specific process
by which complaints must be filed and investigated and includes a
section on protection for employees who speak out.
Volokh said it is important to note that the ruling does not
completely strip government employees of their First Amendment
rights, as they retain all free speech rights so long as they are
not speaking in connection with their jobs. Examples of these forms
of speech include writing a letter to a newspaper or
legislator.
Professors at public universities are considered government
employees, and though the ruling did not directly address questions
of academic freedom, Volokh said scholarship could be affected in
the future.
The Supreme Court did not specify whether professors can be
disciplined for presenting inaccurate information to students in
their published works, even though presenting accurate information
is part of a professor’s job, Volokh said.
But he added that lower courts have usually upheld
scholars’ right to free speech in their academic
writings.
With reports from Bruin wire services.