No Free Speech for Government Whistle-Blowers

by Mike Hall, May 31, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled May 30 that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech protections do not protect public employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing while performing their jobs.

“This decision gives constitutional sanction to those who would fire a public worker for stepping forward to preserve the integrity of our public institutions as a government whistleblower,” says AFSCME President Gerald M. McEntee.

While the ruling limits First Amendment protections, it does not overturn any state or federal whistle-blower protection laws.

The 5–4 decision came in a case involving Richard Ceballos, a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney. According to news reports, Ceballos says he was demoted, transferred and denied a promotion and that his superiors created a hostile work environment after he wrote a memo to his superiors asserting that false information was used to obtain a search warrant in a drug case.

Ceballos advised his superiors to drop the case related to the warrant—but instead, they proceeded with the prosecution. He then informed the defense team of his findings and, when subpoenaed to testify, he told the court about the lies used to obtain the search warrant.

It was after his testimony that Ceballos says his superiors retaliated against him. He then filed suit charging his First Amendment rights had been violated. The AFL-CIO filed a brief in support of Ceballos.

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office claimed the First Amendment does not protect Ceballos’ action or the actions of other public employees in similar circumstances. The Bush administration’s Justice Department also filed a brief supporting the denial of First Amendment protections in such cases.

Says McEntee:

Government employees should not be asked to sacrifice their First Amendment rights to work in the public sector. If we are serious as a society about achieving accountability and openness in government, we must hold public officials responsible for their actions. That means we ought to protect rank-and-file public employees who are courageous enough to risk their own careers to speak out about possible violations of the law or ethical breaches.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP), which also filed a brief supporting Ceballos, said the court ruled in favor of “employer control over the traditional values of freedom and protection of public discourse and professional dissent.

For a more detailed look at the case, check out two GAP articles here and here.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (0)