GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the First Amendment protect the speech of a deputy district attorney who wrote and circulated a memorandum suggesting that a deputy sheriff lied in a search warrant affidavit and in his subsequent testimony at court?

Action

The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.

Facts/Syllabus

Respondent Richard Ceballos has been employed since 1989 as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Ceballos asked by defense counsel to review a case in which, counsel claimed, the affidavit police used to obtain a critical search warrant was inaccurate. Concluding after the review that the affidavit made serious misrepresentations, Ceballos relayed his findings to his supervisors, Petitioners Gil Garcetti, Frank Sundstedt, Carol Najera, and County of Los Angeles, and followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal. Based on Ceballos' statements, a meeting was held to discuss the affidavit. The meeting allegedly became heated, with one lieutenant sharply criticizing Ceballos for his handling of the case. Petitioners nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution. At a hearing on a defense motion to challenge the warrant, Ceballos recounted his observations about the affidavit, but the trial court rejected the challenge. 

Ceballos claims that in the aftermath of these events he was subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions. The actions included reassignment from his calendar deputy position to a trial deputy position, transfer to another courthouse, and denial of a promotion. Ceballos initiated an employment grievance, but the grievance was denied based on a finding that he had not suffered any retaliation. Unsatisfied, Ceballos sued in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting petitioners violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by retaliating against him based on his memo of March 2. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling, inter alia, that the memo was not protected speech because Ceballos wrote it pursuant to his employment duties. Reversing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the memo’s allegations were protected under the First Amendment analysis in Pickering v. Board of Education and Connick v. Myers.

Importance of Case

The impact on campus of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) demonstrates the negative effect seemingly unrelated First Amendment cases can have on the rights of public college students and faculty. When this Court left open the possibility that its holding in Garcetti was applicable to the scholarship and teaching of public university professors, universities immediately began to argue—with success in some circuits—that such speech was unprotected, to the continuing detriment of academic freedom on campus. (From FIRE's amicus brief in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans)