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.