not followed as dicta guarnieri v. borough, m.d.pa ......as a citizen addressing matters of public...

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

126 S.Ct. 1951, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,353, 164 L.Ed.2d 689, 74 USLW 4257...

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment

Not Followed as Dicta Guarnieri v. Borough, M.D.Pa., September 2,

2008

126 S.Ct. 1951Supreme Court of the United States

Gil GARCETTI et al., Petitioners,v.

Richard CEBALLOS.

No. 04–473.|

Argued March 21, 2006.|

Decided May 30, 2006.

SynopsisBackground: Deputy district attorney filed§ 1983 complaint against county andsupervisors at district attorneys' office,alleging that he was subject to adverseemployment actions in retaliation forengaging in protected speech, that is,for writing a disposition memorandum inwhich he recommended dismissal of a caseon the basis of purported governmentalmisconduct. The United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California,A. Howard Matz, J., granted defendants'motion for summary judgment, and districtattorney appealed. The Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit, Reinhardt, Circuit Judge,361 F.3d 1168, reversed and remanded.Certiorari was granted.

Holdings: The United States Supreme Court,Justice Kennedy, held that:

[1] when public employees make statementspursuant to their official duties, theyare not speaking as citizens for FirstAmendment purposes, and the Constitutiondoes not insulate their communications fromemployer discipline, and

[2] here, district attorney did not speak as acitizen when he wrote his memo and, thus,his speech was not protected by the FirstAmendment.

Reversed and remanded.

Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion inwhich Justices Stevens and Ginsburg joined.

Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes (13)

[1] Constitutional LawPolitical speech, beliefs, or

activities

A state cannot conditionpublic employment on a basisthat infringes the employee'sconstitutionally protected interestin freedom of expression. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.

25 Cases that cite this headnote

[2] Constitutional Law

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/Flag?documentGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&transitionType=Document&originationContext=docHeaderFlag&contextData=(sc.DocLink)https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id5a998117e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=RelatedInfo%2Fv4%2Fkeycite%2Fnav%2F%3Fguid%3DId5a998117e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5%26ss%3D2009252264%26ds%3D2016931888&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=NegativeCitingReferences&rank=0&originationContext=docHeader&transitionType=NegativeTreatment&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0180083201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0243105201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0156277701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0263202201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0156277701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0224420501&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0254766801&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1937/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1937/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400120101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




Public or private concern; speaking as “citizen”

Public employees do not surrenderall their First Amendment rightsby reason of their employment;rather, the First Amendmentprotects a public employee's right,in certain circumstances, to speakas a citizen addressing mattersof public concern. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.


[3] Constitutional LawPublic or private concern;

speaking as “citizen”

Constitutional LawBalancing of interests

Pursuant to Pickering and itsprogeny, two inquiries guideinterpretation of the constitutionalprotections accorded to publicemployee speech: the first requiresdetermining whether the employeespoke as a citizen on a matterof public concern; if not, theemployee has no First Amendmentcause of action based on thegovernment employer's reaction tothe speech, but if the answeris yes, the possibility of a FirstAmendment claim arises, and thequestion then becomes whetherthe government employer had anadequate justification for treatingthe employee differently from anyother member of the generalpublic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.


[4] Constitutional LawPublic Employees and Officials

Government entity has broaderdiscretion to restrict speech whenit acts in its role as employer,but the restrictions it imposesmust be directed at speech thathas some potential to affectthe entity's operations. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.



First Amendment limits theability of a public employerto leverage the employmentrelationship to restrict, incidentallyor intentionally, the libertiesemployees enjoy in their capacitiesas private citizens. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.


[6] Constitutional LawEfficiency of public services

So long as public employeesare speaking as citizens aboutmatters of public concern,they must face only thosespeech restrictions that arenecessary for their employers tooperate efficiently and effectively.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.

http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400220101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1931/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400320101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92XVIII(P)/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400420101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1180/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400520101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1934/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)






While the First Amendmentinvests public employees withcertain rights, it does not empowerthem to constitutionalize theemployee grievance. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.



In determining whether a publicemployee's speech is entitled toconstitutional protection, the factthat the employee expresses hisviews inside his office, ratherthan publicly, is not dispositive;employees in some casesmay receive First Amendmentprotection for expressions made atwork. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.


[9] Constitutional LawPublic or private concern;

speaking as “citizen”

In determining whether a publicemployee's speech is entitled toconstitutional protection, the factthat the speech concerns thesubject matter of the employee'semployment is nondispositive; theFirst Amendment protects some

expressions related to the speaker'sjob. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.


[10] Constitutional LawDiscipline or reprimand

When public employees makestatements pursuant to theirofficial duties, the employees arenot speaking as citizens for FirstAmendment purposes, and theConstitution does not insulatetheir communications fromemployer discipline. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.


[11] Constitutional LawAttorneys, prosecutors, and

Attorney General's office

District and Prosecuting AttorneysAppointment

Deputy district attorney did notspeak as a citizen when, pursuantto his official duties as acalendar deputy, he wrote adisposition memorandum in whichhe recommended dismissal of apending criminal case on thebasis of purported governmentalmisconduct, and so his speechwas not protected by the FirstAmendment; when he went towork and performed the taskshe was paid to perform, districtattorney acted as a governmentemployee, not as a citizen, and

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400620101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1180/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400720101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92XVIII(P)/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400820101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1929/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226400920101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1941/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226401020101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1958/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1958/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/131/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/131k3(1)/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




fact that his duties sometimesrequired him to speak or writedid not prohibit his supervisorsfrom evaluating his performance.U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1; 42U.S.C.A. § 1983.


[12] Constitutional LawBalancing of interests

When a public employee speaksas a citizen addressing a matterof public concern, the FirstAmendment requires a delicatebalancing of the competinginterests surrounding the speechand its consequences, which degreeof scrutiny is absent when theemployee is simply performinghis or her job duties. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.


[13] Constitutional LawChange in duties or

responsibilities

Public employers may not restrictemployees' free speech rights bycreating excessively broad jobdescriptions; the listing of a giventask in an employee's written jobdescription is neither necessarynor sufficient to demonstrate thatconducting the task is withinthe scope of the employee'sprofessional duties, for First

Amendment purposes. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 1.


**1953 *410 Syllabus *

Respondent Ceballos, a supervising deputydistrict attorney, was asked by defensecounsel to review a case in which, counselclaimed, the affidavit police used to obtaina critical search warrant was inaccurate.Concluding after the review that the affidavitmade serious misrepresentations, Ceballosrelayed his findings to his supervisors,petitioners here, and followed up witha disposition memorandum recommendingdismissal. Petitioners nevertheless proceededwith the prosecution. At a hearing on adefense motion to challenge the warrant,Ceballos recounted his observations aboutthe affidavit, but the trial court rejectedthe challenge. Claiming that petitionersthen retaliated against him for his memoin violation of the First and FourteenthAmendments, Ceballos filed a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 suit. The District Court grantedpetitioners summary judgment, ruling, interalia, that the memo was not protected speechbecause Ceballos wrote it pursuant to hisemployment duties. Reversing, the NinthCircuit held that the memo's allegationswere protected under the First Amendmentanalysis in Pickering v. Board of Ed. ofTownship High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.,391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811,

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226401120101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1931/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226401220101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1942/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Browse/Home/KeyNumber/92k1942/View.html?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=USCOAMENDI&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/RelatedInformation/DocHeadnoteLink?docGuid=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&headnoteId=200925226401320101105080209&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708.

Held: When public employees makestatements pursuant to their official duties,they are not speaking as citizens for FirstAmendment purposes, and the Constitutiondoes not insulate their communications fromemployer discipline. Pp. 1957 – 1962.

(a) Two inquiries guide interpretationof the constitutional protections accordedpublic employee speech. The first requiresdetermining whether the employee spoke asa citizen on a matter of public concern.See Pickering, supra, at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731.If the answer is no, the employee has noFirst Amendment cause of action basedon the employer's reaction to the speech.See Connick, supra, at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684.If the answer is yes, the possibility of aFirst Amendment claim arises. The questionbecomes whether the government employerhad an adequate justification for treating theemployee differently from any other memberof the general public. See Pickering, supra,at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. This considerationreflects the importance of the relationshipbetween the speaker's expressions andemployment. Without a significant degreeof control over its employees' *411 wordsand actions, a government employer wouldhave little chance to provide public servicesefficiently. Cf. Connick, supra, at 143, 103S.Ct. 1684. Thus, a government entityhas broader discretion to restrict speechwhen it acts in its employer role, but therestrictions it imposes must be directed atspeech that has some potential to affect itsoperations. On the other hand, a citizen

who works for the government is nonethelessstill a citizen. The First Amendment limitsa public employer's ability to leveragethe employment relationship to restrict,incidentally or intentionally, the libertiesemployees enjoy in their capacities as privatecitizens. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S.593, 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570. Solong as employees are speaking as citizensabout **1954 matters of public concern,they must face only those speech restrictionsthat are necessary for their employers tooperate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g.,Connick, supra, at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. Pp.1957 – 1959.

(b) Proper application of the Court'sprecedents leads to the conclusionthat the First Amendment does notprohibit managerial discipline based on anemployee's expressions made pursuant toofficial responsibilities. Because Ceballos'memo falls into this category, his allegationof unconstitutional retaliation must fail.The dispositive factor here is not thatCeballos expressed his views inside his office,rather than publicly, see, e.g., Givhan v.Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439U.S. 410, 414, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d619, nor that the memo concerned thesubject matter of his employment, see,e.g., Pickering, supra, at 573, 88 S.Ct.1731. Rather, the controlling factor is thatCeballos' expressions were made pursuantto his official duties. That considerationdistinguishes this case from those in whichthe First Amendment provides protectionagainst discipline. Ceballos wrote hisdisposition memo because that is partof what he was employed to do. He

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1972127191&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1972127191&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1979108017&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1979108017&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1979108017&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1979108017&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




did not act as a citizen by writingit. The fact that his duties sometimesrequired him to speak or write does notmean his supervisors were prohibited fromevaluating his performance. Restrictingspeech that owes its existence to a publicemployee's professional responsibilities doesnot infringe any liberties the employeemight have enjoyed as a private citizen.It simply reflects the exercise of employercontrol over what the employer itself hascommissioned or created. Cf. Rosenbergerv. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.,515 U.S. 819, 833, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132L.Ed.2d 700. This result is consistent withthe Court's prior emphasis on the potentialsocietal value of employee speech and onaffording government employers sufficientdiscretion to manage their operations.Ceballos' proposed contrary rule, adoptedby the Ninth Circuit, would commit stateand federal courts to a new, permanent, andintrusive role, mandating judicial oversightof communications between and amonggovernment employees and their superiorsin the course of official business. Thisdisplacement of managerial discretion byjudicial supervision finds *412 no supportin the Court's precedents. The doctrinalanomaly the Court of Appeals perceivedin compelling public employers to toleratecertain employee speech made publicly butnot speech made pursuant to an employee'sassigned duties misconceives the theoreticalunderpinnings of this Court's decisions andis unfounded as a practical matter. Pp. 1959– 1962.

(c) Exposing governmental inefficiency andmisconduct is a matter of considerable

significance, and various measures have beenadopted to protect employees and providechecks on supervisors who would orderunlawful or otherwise inappropriate actions.These include federal and state whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes and,for government attorneys, rules of conductand constitutional obligations apart fromthe First Amendment. However, the Court'sprecedents do not support the existence of aconstitutional cause of action behind everystatement a public employee makes in thecourse of doing his or her job. P. 1962.

361 F.3d 1168, reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion ofthe Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ.,joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissentingopinion, post, p. 1962. SOUTER, J., fileda dissenting opinion, in which STEVENSand GINSBURG, JJ., joined, post, p. 1963.**1955 BREYER, J., filed a dissentingopinion, post, p. 1973.

Attorneys and Law Firms

Dan Himmelfarb, for the United States asamicus curiae, by special leave of the Court,supporting the petitioners.

Bonnie E. Robin-Vergeer, for respondent.

Cindy S. Lee, Counsel of Record, JinS. Choi, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts &Lawrence, Glendale, California, Office OfThe County Counsel, Raymond G. Fortner,Jr., County Counsel, Philip S. Miller,Assistant County Counsel, Doraine F.

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995137604&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995137604&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995137604&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995137604&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0243105201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0258116001&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0254763301&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0216654601&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0153052401&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0156277701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0263202201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0156277701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0224420501&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0254766801&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0390588501&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0177771901&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0338576701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0338576701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0127971101&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0127971101&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0120327301&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




Meyer, Senior Deputy County Counsel, LosAngeles, California, Counsel for Petitioners.

Cindy S. Lee, Counsel of Record, JinS. Choi, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts &Lawrence, Glendale, California, Counsel forPetitioners Admitted to the Bar of theSupreme Court on July 17, 1998.

Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Counsel ofRecord, Scott L. Nelson, BrianWolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group,Washington, DC, Humberto GuizarMoreno, Becerra, Guerrero & Casillas,Montebello, CA, Counsel for Respondent.

Opinion

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion ofthe Court.

[1] *413 It is well settled that “aState cannot condition public employmenton a basis that infringes the employee'sconstitutionally protected interest infreedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers,461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d708 (1983). The question presented by theinstant case is whether the First Amendmentprotects a government employee fromdiscipline based on speech made pursuant tothe employee's official duties.

I

Respondent Richard Ceballos has beenemployed since 1989 as a deputy districtattorney for the Los Angeles CountyDistrict Attorney's Office. During the periodrelevant to this case, Ceballos was a

calendar deputy in the office's Pomonabranch, and in this capacity he exercisedcertain supervisory responsibilities overother lawyers. In February 2000, a defenseattorney contacted Ceballos about a pendingcriminal case. The defense attorney saidthere were inaccuracies in an affidavit usedto obtain a critical search warrant. Theattorney informed Ceballos that he *414had filed a motion to traverse, or challenge,the warrant, but he also wanted Ceballos toreview the case. According to Ceballos, itwas not unusual for defense attorneys to askcalendar deputies to investigate aspects ofpending cases.

After examining the affidavit and visitingthe location it described, Ceballosdetermined the affidavit contained seriousmisrepresentations. The affidavit called along driveway what Ceballos thought shouldhave been referred to as a separate roadway.Ceballos also questioned the affidavit'sstatement that tire tracks led from astripped-down truck to the premises coveredby the warrant. His doubts arose from hisconclusion that the roadway's compositionin some places made it difficult or impossibleto leave visible tire tracks.

Ceballos spoke on the telephone tothe warrant affiant, a deputy sherifffrom the Los Angeles County Sheriff'sDepartment, but he did not receive asatisfactory explanation for the perceivedinaccuracies. He relayed his findings tohis supervisors, petitioners Carol Najeraand Frank Sundstedt, and followed up bypreparing a disposition memorandum. Thememo explained **1956 Ceballos' concerns

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0177771901&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0338576701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0338576701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0364468701&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0115880301&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0206087601&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0206087601&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0243105201&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




and recommended dismissal of the case.On March 2, 2000, Ceballos submitted thememo to Sundstedt for his review. A fewdays later, Ceballos presented Sundstedtwith another memo, this one describinga second telephone conversation betweenCeballos and the warrant affiant.

Based on Ceballos' statements, a meetingwas held to discuss the affidavit. Attendeesincluded Ceballos, Sundstedt, and Najera,as well as the warrant affiant and otheremployees from the sheriff's department.The meeting allegedly became heated, withone lieutenant sharply criticizing Ceballosfor his handling of the case.

Despite Ceballos' concerns, Sundstedtdecided to proceed with the prosecution,pending disposition of the defense motion totraverse. The trial court held a hearing on themotion. Ceballos was called by the defenseand recounted *415 his observations aboutthe affidavit, but the trial court rejected thechallenge to the warrant.

Ceballos claims that in the aftermath ofthese events he was subjected to a series ofretaliatory employment actions. The actionsincluded reassignment from his calendardeputy position to a trial deputy position,transfer to another courthouse, and denialof a promotion. Ceballos initiated anemployment grievance, but the grievancewas denied based on a finding that he hadnot suffered any retaliation. Unsatisfied,Ceballos sued in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California,asserting, as relevant here, a claim underRev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

He alleged petitioners violated the Firstand Fourteenth Amendments by retaliatingagainst him based on his memo of March 2.

Petitioners responded that no retaliatoryactions were taken against Ceballos andthat all the actions of which he complainedwere explained by legitimate reasonssuch as staffing needs. They furthercontended that, in any event, Ceballos'memo was not protected speech underthe First Amendment. Petitioners movedfor summary judgment, and the DistrictCourt granted their motion. Noting thatCeballos wrote his memo pursuant to hisemployment duties, the court concludedhe was not entitled to First Amendmentprotection for the memo's contents. It heldin the alternative that even if Ceballos'speech was constitutionally protected,petitioners had qualified immunity becausethe rights Ceballos asserted were not clearlyestablished.

The Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit reversed, holding that “Ceballos'sallegations of wrongdoing in thememorandum constitute protected speechunder the First Amendment.” 361 F.3d 1168,1173 (C.A.9 2004). In reaching its conclusionthe court looked to the First Amendmentanalysis set forth in Pickering v. Board ofEd. of Township High School Dist. 205, WillCty., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d811 (1968), and Connick, supra, 103 S.Ct.1684. Connick instructs courts to begin byconsidering *416 whether the expressionsin question were made by the speaker “asa citizen upon matters of public concern.”See id., at 146–147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. The

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS1983&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1173&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1173http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1173&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1173http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




Court of Appeals determined that Ceballos'memo, which recited what he thought to begovernmental misconduct, was “inherentlya matter of public concern.” 361 F.3d, at1174. The court did not, however, considerwhether the speech was made in Ceballos'capacity as a citizen. Rather, it relied onCircuit precedent rejecting the idea that“a public employee's speech is deprived ofFirst Amendment protection whenever thoseviews are expressed, to government workersor others, pursuant to an employmentresponsibility.” Id., at 1174–1175 (citingcases including **1957 Roth v. Veteran'sAdmin. of Govt. of United States, 856 F.2d1401 (C.A.9 1988)).

Having concluded that Ceballos' memosatisfied the public-concern requirement, theCourt of Appeals proceeded to balanceCeballos' interest in his speech against hissupervisors' interest in responding to it. SeePickering, supra, at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731.The court struck the balance in Ceballos'favor, noting that petitioners “failed evento suggest disruption or inefficiency in theworkings of the District Attorney's Office”as a result of the memo. See 361 F.3d,at 1180. The court further concluded thatCeballos' First Amendment rights wereclearly established and that petitioners'actions were not objectively reasonable. Seeid., at 1181–1182.

Judge O'Scannlain specially concurred.Agreeing that the panel's decision wascompelled by Circuit precedent, henevertheless concluded Circuit law shouldbe revisited and overruled. See id., at1185. Judge O'Scannlain emphasized the

distinction “between speech offered by apublic employee acting as an employeecarrying out his or her ordinary job dutiesand that spoken by an employee acting as acitizen expressing his or her personal viewson disputed matters of public import.” Id.,at 1187. In his view, “when public employeesspeak in the course of carrying out theirroutine, required employment obligations,they have no personal interest *417 in thecontent of that speech that gives rise to aFirst Amendment right.” Id., at 1189.

We granted certiorari, 543 U.S. 1186, 125S.Ct. 1395, 161 L.Ed.2d 188 (2005), and wenow reverse.

II

[2] As the Court's decisions have noted,for many years “the unchallenged dogmawas that a public employee had no right toobject to conditions placed upon the termsof employment—including those whichrestricted the exercise of constitutionalrights.” Connick, 461 U.S., at 143, 103S.Ct. 1684. That dogma has been qualifiedin important respects. See id., at 144–145,103 S.Ct. 1684. The Court has made clearthat public employees do not surrender alltheir First Amendment rights by reasonof their employment. Rather, the FirstAmendment protects a public employee'sright, in certain circumstances, to speak as acitizen addressing matters of public concern.See, e.g., Pickering, supra, at 568, 88 S.Ct.1731; Connick, supra, at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684;Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384, 107S.Ct. 2891, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987); United

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1174&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1174http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1174&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1174http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1988114852&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1988114852&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1988114852&pubNum=350&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1180&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1180http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1180&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_sp_506_1180http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2004244520&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2005281234&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2005281234&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1987079052&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1987079052&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995052531&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454,466, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d 964 (1995).

Pickering provides a useful starting point inexplaining the Court's doctrine. There therelevant speech was a teacher's letter to alocal newspaper addressing issues includingthe funding policies of his school board. 391U.S., at 566, 88 S.Ct. 1731. “The problemin any case,” the Court stated, “is to arriveat a balance between the interests of theteacher, as a citizen, in commenting uponmatters of public concern and the interest ofthe State, as an employer, in promoting theefficiency of the public services it performsthrough its employees.” Id., at 568, 88 S.Ct.1731. The Court found the teacher's speech“neither [was] shown nor can be presumed tohave in any way either impeded the teacher'sproper performance of his daily duties inthe classroom or to have interfered with theregular operation of the schools generally.”Id., at 572–573, 88 S.Ct. 1731 (footnoteomitted). Thus, the Court concluded that“the interest of the school administration inlimiting teachers' opportunities to contributeto public debate is not significantly *418greater than its interest in limiting a similarcontribution **1958 by any member of thegeneral public.” Id., at 573, 88 S.Ct. 1731.

[3] [4] Pickering and the cases decidedin its wake identify two inquiries toguide interpretation of the constitutionalprotections accorded to public employeespeech. The first requires determiningwhether the employee spoke as a citizenon a matter of public concern. See id., at568, 88 S.Ct. 1731. If the answer is no, theemployee has no First Amendment cause

of action based on his or her employer'sreaction to the speech. See Connick, supra,at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684. If the answeris yes, then the possibility of a FirstAmendment claim arises. The questionbecomes whether the relevant governmententity had an adequate justification fortreating the employee differently from anyother member of the general public. SeePickering, 391 U.S., at 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731.This consideration reflects the importanceof the relationship between the speaker'sexpressions and employment. A governmententity has broader discretion to restrictspeech when it acts in its role as employer,but the restrictions it imposes must bedirected at speech that has some potential toaffect the entity's operations.

To be sure, conducting these inquiriessometimes has proved difficult. This is thenecessary product of “the enormous varietyof fact situations in which critical statementsby teachers and other public employees maybe thought by their superiors ... to furnishgrounds for dismissal.” Id., at 569., 88 S.Ct.1731 The Court's overarching objectives,though, are evident.

When a citizen enters government service,the citizen by necessity must accept certainlimitations on his or her freedom. See, e.g.,Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 671, 114S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994) (pluralityopinion) (“[T]he government as employerindeed has far broader powers than doesthe government as sovereign”). Governmentemployers, like private employers, need asignificant degree of control over theiremployees' words and actions; without it,

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995052531&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995052531&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994118476&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994118476&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




there would be little chance for the efficientprovision of public services. Cf. *419Connick, supra, at 143, 103 S.Ct. 1684(“[G]overnment offices could not functionif every employment decision became aconstitutional matter”). Public employees,moreover, often occupy trusted positionsin society. When they speak out, they canexpress views that contravene governmentalpolicies or impair the proper performance ofgovernmental functions.

[5] [6] At the same time, the Court hasrecognized that a citizen who works for thegovernment is nonetheless a citizen. TheFirst Amendment limits the ability of apublic employer to leverage the employmentrelationship to restrict, incidentally orintentionally, the liberties employees enjoyin their capacities as private citizens. SeePerry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597,92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972).So long as employees are speaking ascitizens about matters of public concern,they must face only those speech restrictionsthat are necessary for their employers tooperate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g.,Connick, supra, at 147, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (“Ourresponsibility is to ensure that citizens arenot deprived of fundamental rights by virtueof working for the government”).

The Court's employee-speech jurisprudenceprotects, of course, the constitutionalrights of public employees. Yet the FirstAmendment interests at stake extendbeyond the individual speaker. The Courthas acknowledged the importance ofpromoting the public's interest in receivingthe well-informed views of government

employees engaging in civic discussion.Pickering again provides an instructiveexample. The Court characterized its**1959 holding as rejecting the attempt ofschool administrators to “limi[t] teachers'opportunities to contribute to publicdebate.” 391 U.S., at 573, 88 S.Ct. 1731.It also noted that teachers are “themembers of a community most likely tohave informed and definite opinions” aboutschool expenditures. Id., at 572, 88 S.Ct.1731. The Court's approach acknowledgedthe necessity for informed, vibrant dialoguein a democratic society. It suggested, inaddition, that widespread costs may arisewhen dialogue is repressed. The Court'smore recent cases have expressed similarconcerns. *420 See, e.g., San Diego v.Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 82, 125 S.Ct. 521,160 L.Ed.2d 410 (2004) (per curiam)(“Were [public employees] not able tospeak on [the operation of their employers],the community would be deprived ofinformed opinions on important publicissues. The interest at stake is as muchthe public's interest in receiving informedopinion as it is the employee's own rightto disseminate it” (citation omitted)); cf.Treasury Employees, 513 U.S., at 470, 115S.Ct. 1003 (“The large-scale disincentiveto Government employees' expression alsoimposes a significant burden on the public'sright to read and hear what the employeeswould otherwise have written and said”).

[7] The Court's decisions, then, havesought both to promote the individualand societal interests that are served whenemployees speak as citizens on matters ofpublic concern and to respect the needs

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1972127191&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1972127191&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983118236&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1968131204&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2005688006&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2005688006&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2005688006&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995052531&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1995052531&pubNum=708&originatingDoc=I9c9379a3ed7811daa223cd6b838f54f9&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)




of government employers attempting toperform their important public functions.See, e.g., Rankin, 483 U.S., at 384, 107 S.Ct.2891 (recognizing “the dual role of the publicemployer as a provider of public servicesand as a government entity operating underthe constraints of the First Amendment”).Underlying our cases has been the premisethat while the First Amendment investspublic employees with certain rights, it doesnot empower them to “constitutionalize theemployee grievance.” Connick, 461 U.S., at154, 103 S.Ct. 1684.

III

[8] With these principles in mind weturn to the instant case. RespondentCeballos believed the affidavit used toobtain a search warrant contained seriousmisrepresentations. He conveyed his opinionand recommendation in a memo to hissupervisor. That Ceballos expressed hisviews inside his office, rather than publicly,is not dispositive. Employees in some casesmay receive First Amendment protection forexpressions made at work. See, e.g., Givhanv. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 439U.S. 410, 414, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d619 (1979). Many citizens do much of theirtalking inside their respective workplaces,and it would not

not followed as dicta guarnieri v. borough, m.d.pa ......as a citizen addressing matters of public...

Documents