scottyz
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice
Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.
In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.
Critics predicted the impact 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 that 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 a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos had filed a lawsuit claiming he was demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.
Kennedy said if the superiors thought the memo was inflammatory, they had the authority to punish him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_free_speechStephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said: "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 O'Connor were 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 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 that Kennedy's ruling frees government managers to make necessary personnel actions, like negative performance reviews or demotions, without fear of frivolous lawsuits.
Ceballos said in a telephone interview that "it puts your average government employee in one heck of a predicament ... I think government employees will be more inclined to keep quiet."
Was this a good decision or a great loss of oversight? Democrat or Republican run, the Government is always going to be up to illegal and questionable activies and now we are possibly losing one way to know about those activities.