Posted on 05/30/2006 8:18:39 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bump!
That should include retired Generals...........
This might also have covered the FBI agents who had been trying to get the agency to look into some of the precursors to 9/11. Are you sure stifling whistleblowers is the way you want government to govern? Not me.
Stand by for the "chilling effect" predictions.
I completely understand the mentality behind this: CYA for the gubmint, but am I off by saying this is a violation of 1st Amendment freedoms? Shouldn't this be covered in gov't employment policy instead of federal code?
/donsFlameproofSuit
I don't know, but I'm presuming (and asking):
Roberts
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
???
And it says Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority.
No need to predict anything. How did we find out about the Clintons going through FBI records looking for dirt? That's right. Whistleblower. The First Felons would have loved this decision.
Kennedy wrote for the Majority, presumably:
Roberts
Kennedy
Scalia
Thomas
Alito
Toooooo bad the leaking elected Congress creatures are not required to "whistleblow" by the same rules.
Thanks. It was right in front of me.
Maxwell House don't fail me now!
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
No prob. I was surprised at the Kennedy vote.
Did the whistelbowers you cited in the FBI records case sue the "First Felons"?
Roberts and Alito must have done a good job persuading Kennedy. Hopefully that will happen more often.
Glad to see limits on those "whistleblowers" divulging our national security secrets and undermining the war on terror.
BTTT!
Ah, it's in the suing. You're right. This is a tangent from the real problem of opaque governing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.