Post by red on May 31, 2006 6:59:00 GMT -8
www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_3882541
High court rejects free speech plea
Area prosecutor filed suit
By Gina Holland Associated Press
WASHINGTON - In a case with roots in the San Gabriel Valley, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct.
In a victory for the Bush administration, the justices - in a 5-4 ruling in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote - found that 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say is part of their jobs.
Critics predicted the impact of the case involving Los Angeles County prosecutors would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.
Supporters said it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.
Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in an August 1999 search warrant affidavit in a stolen vehicle case in Bassett.
Ceballos, working out of the DA's Pomona office, recommended the charges be dismissed against the three defendants and testified for the defense.
Tire marks leading from a stolen pickup truck to the back fence on Proctor Avenue was one of the factors used to establish probable cause and get a warrant.
Ceballos said tire marks couldn't be seen along the entire length of a driveway leading to one of the defendants' property.
He said a supervisor tried to dissuade him from testifying for the defense.
Deputies denied his allegations and said an inquiry made by Industry Station officials didn't bear out his claims.
The warrant was ruled valid.
Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for speaking out.
Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.
"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.
In a statement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said the ruling "strikes the proper balance between employees' First Amendment rights and the need to promote efficiency in the public workplace."
The decision "allows public employers to conduct the people's business without undue disruption and without turning routine personnel decisions into federal cases," Cooley said.
Stephen Kohn, chairman of the
National Whistleblower Center, contended: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."
Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the court.
"Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.
Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos but on different grounds.
The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of O'Connor and the arrival of Alito.
A year ago, O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools. The current case was argued in October but not resolved before her retirement in late January.
A new argument session was held in March with Alito on the bench. He joined the court's other conservatives in Tuesday's decision, which split along traditional conservative-liberal lines.
The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.
"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.
Employment attorney Dan Westman said Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.
"I don't think he's unleashed a wave of terminations," Westman said.
Washington lawyer Gene Schaerr, a former government attorney, said the ruling keeps courts from meddling in the business of local governments. "It's not the role of the First Amendment to be an all-purpose whistleblower law," he said.
The court's decision immediately prompted calls for Congress to strengthen protections for workers.
Kennedy said government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."
High court rejects free speech plea
Area prosecutor filed suit
By Gina Holland Associated Press
WASHINGTON - In a case with roots in the San Gabriel Valley, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct.
In a victory for the Bush administration, the justices - in a 5-4 ruling in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote - found that 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say is part of their jobs.
Critics predicted the impact of the case involving Los Angeles County prosecutors would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.
Supporters said it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled workers pretending to be legitimate whistleblowers.
Exposing government misconduct is important, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy said.
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision that said Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected when he wrote a memo questioning whether a county sheriff's deputy had lied in an August 1999 search warrant affidavit in a stolen vehicle case in Bassett.
Ceballos, working out of the DA's Pomona office, recommended the charges be dismissed against the three defendants and testified for the defense.
Tire marks leading from a stolen pickup truck to the back fence on Proctor Avenue was one of the factors used to establish probable cause and get a warrant.
Ceballos said tire marks couldn't be seen along the entire length of a driveway leading to one of the defendants' property.
He said a supervisor tried to dissuade him from testifying for the defense.
Deputies denied his allegations and said an inquiry made by Industry Station officials didn't bear out his claims.
The warrant was ruled valid.
Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for speaking out.
Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.
"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Kennedy wrote.
In a statement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said the ruling "strikes the proper balance between employees' First Amendment rights and the need to promote efficiency in the public workplace."
The decision "allows public employers to conduct the people's business without undue disruption and without turning routine personnel decisions into federal cases," Cooley said.
Stephen Kohn, chairman of the
National Whistleblower Center, contended: "The ruling is a victory for every crooked politician in the United States."
Justice David H. Souter's lengthy dissent sounded like it might have been the majority opinion if moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the court.
"Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," he wrote.
Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer also supported Ceballos but on different grounds.
The ruling was perhaps the clearest sign yet of the Supreme Court's shift with the departure of O'Connor and the arrival of Alito.
A year ago, O'Connor authored a 5-4 decision that encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools. The current case was argued in October but not resolved before her retirement in late January.
A new argument session was held in March with Alito on the bench. He joined the court's other conservatives in Tuesday's decision, which split along traditional conservative-liberal lines.
The ruling upheld the position of the Bush administration, which had joined the district attorney's office in opposing absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. President Bush's two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, signed onto Kennedy's opinion but did not write separately.
"It's a very frightening signal of dark times ahead," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project.
Employment attorney Dan Westman said Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.
"I don't think he's unleashed a wave of terminations," Westman said.
Washington lawyer Gene Schaerr, a former government attorney, said the ruling keeps courts from meddling in the business of local governments. "It's not the role of the First Amendment to be an all-purpose whistleblower law," he said.
The court's decision immediately prompted calls for Congress to strengthen protections for workers.
Kennedy said government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, Kennedy said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."