Justices, 5-4, Limit Whistleblower Suits (Alito Breaks Tie, Sides With Conservatives)

New York Times ^ | May 30, 2006

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.

By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government's inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court's majority, said the First Amendment does not protect "every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job."

The decision came after the case was argued twice this term, once before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired in January, and again after her successor, Alito, joined the bench.

The ruling sided with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, which appealed an appellate court ruling which held that prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in a search warrant affidavit.

Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, in his appointments to the federal bench, Bush has been a judicial conservative. He has appointed judges and Justices who respect the Constitution, and see their roles as applying the law, not rewriting the law and the Constitution itself.

As you do, I have many quarrels with the "conservatism," vel non of the Bush Administration including immigration, his signing of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Law, etc. However, in this one area, with its long-lasting effects (30 years on average), I believe Bush has done an excellent job.

The Harriet Miers attempted appointment was a serious flub. And I don't give Bush credit for a Machiavellian move, naming Miers so Alito would be a certain confirmation as the substitute. However, given how Alito is working out in place, I view this is inadvertent genius as it were. It is the judicial equivalent of the introduction of "New Coke."

P.S. New info. My primary is over, but because of legal and ethical problems, the incumbent may withdraw/be forced out. He is also losing in the latest poll (5/28) to the Democrat challenger. I seek to be the replacement nominee. For more information see my website. I still need your help.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Ray Nagin -- 'Good and Hard' "

[A2J]

It doesn't say no one can speak up .. it says that not "every statement" made is protected

Then, please, give us all an example of a statement that would be protected.

I agree that every statement doesn't deserve protection but what if a statement greatly serves the public interest? Would that statement be protected?

[A2J]

No, the GOP (perennial cowards) could have DESTROYED the Clintons, but as usual, helped them cover everything up. The Daddy(revenue enhancers) Bush got married to Bill Clinton, which helped bill and his legacy look legitimate This helped to complete the GOP self- castration.

And yet we're expected to trust the corrupt GOP?

[A2J]

The Roman Catholic Hammer has thundered! I don't know anything about this case in particular, but I like seeing the Catholic majority on the court acting in unision. Let's hope they keep it up!

Yeah, I can see how the RC lackeys are sensitive about exposing the corruption in powerful entities...such as the Catholic Church and their pedophile priests.

[A2J]

People cheerleading the strengthening of the executive branch must have forgotten that some day, a Democrat will be in that office again and will have benefited from all of these changes.

What?!

You mean Bush is not a democrat? Could've fooled me!

[A2J]

Stifling whistleblowers? No thanks. I want government as transparent as possible.

Yep. Like glass.

[A2J]

But this cuts both way: what about the Benedict Arnold in the CIA who decided to hand secrets over to the Washington Post and NY Slimes because she did not approve of certain policy?

If the secrets harm our national security then that "Arnold" should be punished.

However, if those "secrets" serve the public interest by helping to keep government honest, then that so-called "Arnold" should be protected.

I fear that we've become so accustomed to "daddy government" that we want to protect something that is inherently not our friend.

[stephenjohnbanker]

""And yet we're expected to trust the corrupt GOP?""

Absolutely not : )

[maro]

As a practical matter, it would be insane to let bureaucrats avoid being fired just because they come up with a first amendment argument. Every lazy, stupid, worthless hack government worker would, as soon as he realized his days are numbered, write memos criticizing everything he could think of, as well as letters to the editor to the same effect.

[Locomotive Breath]

We want and need government officials to be able to expose things like trumped up warrants or using the IRS to go after political enemies or the ATF trampling rights..its in our best interest.

I don't know about state government but the Feds have an official whistleblower procedure to follow in circumstances like this. Taking it to the press is not part of the procedure.

I don't want to register to read the NYT article. Something that's not clear to me is whether the memo was written internally and then leaked to the press by a third party or whether the whistleblower talked to the press directly.

[Locomotive Breath]

Or did the memo become public when the employee sued?

[Sandy]

Something that's not clear to me is whether the memo was written internally and then leaked to the press by a third party or whether the whistleblower talked to the press directly.

There was no leaking to the press at all. This was all internal work-related stuff. Ceballos was a Deputy District Attorney with a supervisory role over another Deputy D.A. The underling was prosecuting a case in which the defense attorney believed that the affidavit for the search warrant contained lies or errors or somesuch thing. The defense attorney asked Ceballos to review the matter; so Ceballos investigated the warrant affidavit and then wrote a memo to his superiors, recommending that the case be dismissed. Ultimately, the prosecution went forward. During the defense motion to dismiss, Ceballos was called to testify on behalf of the defense, but the defense lost the motion anyway, and the trial proceeded.

Afterward, Ceballos was subjected to demotion and other retaliatory measures, so he filed suit claiming a violation of his first Amendment rights.

[oblomov]

Does it cover watchdogs as well as whistleblowers?

[eddiebear]

Tell me again that it doesn't matter who you vote for and that sitting out is the best thing for conservatism. Alito never would have gotten through with Leahy running the Senate.

But I'm afraid some on this site think losing is the best thing to do.

[proudpapa]

It's possible that Kennedy wants to be part of the 'in' crowd.

Regardless of idealogy who would you rather spend time with...Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter

Or

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia?

I predict that we will see Kennedy become more reasonable throughout his career.

[Sacajaweau]

I think that's a couple of cases that Kennedy has sided with the conservatives. Was he intimidated prior to? Was Sandra "designated" as the fifth wheel?

[dangus]

Kennedy was more often a conservative than a liberal. What made the court seem so damned liberal is that Kennedy and O'Connor were the Siskel and Ebert of the court. If one voted conservative, the other voted liberal. And both had to vote conservative to form a conservative majority.

[dangus]

>> Yet almost daily the trolls on this site whine that we don't KNOW that Alito is a conservative. <<

We don't. But the evidence is certainly growing.

[dangus]

Opus Dei got to him ;^D