Gil Garcetti pictured in 2011. Garcetti is the former Los Angeles District Attorney involved in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Ceballos was an employee in Garcetti's office who wrote a critical memo and alleged retaliation by his employer. The court ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to speech issued as part of the routine duties of public employees.
Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos then ...
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 …
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) In February 2005 the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, which raises the legal issue of whether job-related speech of public employees should have First Amendment protection under the matters-of-public-concern test. The case involves a California deputy district attorney, Richard Ceballos, who suspected that a …
Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos then told the defense he believed the affidavit contained false statements, and defense counsel subpoenaed him to testify. Seeking damages in federal district court, Ceballos alleged that D.A.s in the office retaliated against him for his cooperation with the defense, which he argued was protected by the First Amendment. The district court ruled that the district attorneys were protected by qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and ruled for Ceballos, holding that qualified immunity was not available to the defendants because Ceballos had been engaged in speech that addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected by the First Amendment.
Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be protected by the First Amendment simply because it touched on a matter of public concern, or must the speech also be engaged in "as a citizen?"
Ceballos claimed that he was subsequently subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions. These included reassignment to a different position, transfer to another courthouse, and denial of a promotion.
In a telephone interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Ceballos said, "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."
Souter's proposed barrier would not screen out very many cases, because there are too many issues of public concern; further, the speech of a vast many public employees deals with wrongdoing, health, safety, and honesty, and such a rule would protect speech by an employee engaged in almost any public function.
The "controlling factor" was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which "owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities," did not in the Court's view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen.
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties. The case had been reargued following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as the decision was tied without her; her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, then broke the tie.
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.
Justice Souter's dissent was joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg. Like Justice Stevens, Souter agreed with the majority that a government employer has an active interest in effectuating its objectives, and can take corresponding action to ensure "competence, honesty, and judgment" from its employees.
Richard Ceballos (plaintiff), a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, believed an affidavit used to obtain a critical search warrant contained severe inaccuracies, and contacted the warrant affiant, a Los Angeles deputy sheriff, about the reasons for the inaccuracies. Ceballos was unsatisfied with the deputy sheriff’s answers, and relayed his findings to his supervisors. Ceballos recommended that the case be dismissed. His supervisors decided to proceed with the prosecution, however, and Ceballos was called by the defense to testify about the inaccuracies in the affidavit. After his testimony, Ceballos claims that he was subjected to several retaliatory employment actions. Ceballos brought suit in federal district court against Garcetti (defendant), the Los Angeles County District Attorney, on the grounds that the First Amendment protected his testimony. The district court ruled that Garcetti was protected by qualified immunity, but the court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Ceballos brought suit in federal district court against Garcetti (defendant), the Los Angeles County District Attorney, on the grounds that the First Amendment protected his testimony. The district court ruled that Garcetti was protected by qualified immunity, but the court of appeals reversed.
Ceballos was unsatisfied with the deputy sheriff’s answers, and relayed his findings to his supervisors. Ceballos recommended that the case be dismissed. His supervisors decided to proceed with the prosecution, however, and Ceballos was called by the defense to testify about the inaccuracies in the affidavit.
The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Prudence said sure, and the parties signed a contract to the effect that Prudence would hold the car. A few hours later, Bobby unexpectedly offered Prudence $3,500 for the car, and Prudence sold it to him on the spot. Danny decided to buy the car, but when he came by to pick it up the next day, it was gone.
Fact Pattern 7-2. Hester offers to sell her house to Frank for $250,000. Frank says that he would like to think about it, and Hester says that is fine. The next day, Martha, Hester's friend, says that she will give Hester $240,000 for the house.