The Court decision on government whistle blowers
I haven't read enough to fully digest today's Supreme Court decision limiting whistle blower protections for government employees, but I have a feeling the precedent set here may be significant and dangerous. Marty Lederman has a good synopsis, of which this is a small piece:
It's worth reading the whole thing.
Today, the Court took that very signifiant step, holding that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline." This apparently means that employees may be disciplined for their official capacity speech, without any First Amendment scrutiny, and without regard to whether it touches on matters of "public concern" -- a very significant doctrinal development.
It's worth reading the whole thing.
posted by walldon | 5:24 PM
2 Comments:
Yeah, I'm not really sure what to say about this decision, nor am I very aware of the specifics. From the way it seems to me, they will receive protection only if they are no longer employed by the government. So, it seems, they have to sacrifice their employment (quit) before they can "whistle blow." I could be wrong, but that's how it seems.
I believe that's essentially a correct interpretation, except, perhaps, that the protection covers whistleblowing even while the public employee is in the job -- just not unwelcome efforts to make sure the agency makes the right decision in the first place! It looks like a terrible, terrible decision, intended to chill dissent within the public sector -- and even to make academics think twice about what they say -- and it's a shame for all of us to see Kennedy selling out to the dark side.
Post a Comment
<< Home