Garcetti v. Ceballos
| Garcetti v. Ceballos | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 12, 2005 Reargued March 21, 2006 Decided May 30, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Gil Garcetti, Frank Sundstedt, Carol Najera, and County of Los Angeles v. Richard Ceballos |
| Docket nos. | 04-473 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 410 (more)
126 S. Ct. 1951; 164 L. Ed. 2d 689; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4341; 74 U.S.L.W. 4257; 152 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P60,203; 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42,353; 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 737
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | Summary judgment granted to defendants, No. 00-11106, C.D. Cal.; reversed, 361 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 1186 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.
Richard Ceballos had been employed since 1989 as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which at the time was headed by Gil Garcetti. After the defense attorney in a pending criminal case contacted Ceballos about his motion to challenge a critical search warrant based on inaccuracies in the supporting affidavit, Ceballos conducted his own investigation and determined that the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations. Ceballos contacted the deputy sheriff who had sworn out the affidavit but was not satisfied by his explanations. Ceballos then communicated his findings to his supervisors and submitted a memorandum in which he recommended dismissal of the case. A meeting was subsequently held to discuss the affidavit with his superiors and officials from the sheriff's department, which Ceballos claimed became heated and accusatory of his role in handling the case. Despite Ceballos’ concerns, his supervisor decided to proceed with the prosecution. The criminal trial court held a hearing on the motion, during which Ceballos was called by the defense to recount his observations about the affidavit. The trial court nevertheless denied the motion and upheld the warrant.
...
Wikipedia