Garcetti v. Ceballos: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=May 30, 2006 | |date=May 30, 2006 | ||
|subject=First Amendment | |subject=First Amendment | ||
|facts=Ceballos was a Los Angeles deputy DA (district attorney). He learned that an affidavit for a search warrant contained inaccuracies. Next, he wrote a memo recommending dismissal of the case. The supervisors of Ceballos ignored his recommendation. | |||
|facts=Ceballos was a Los Angeles deputy DA (district attorney). | |||
Afterwards, the defense counsel called on Ceballos to testify concerning his observations for the search warrant. | |||
|procedural_history=Ceballos filed a grievance stating that his candid testimony in the case resulted in his being passed up for a promotion. Investigators claimed that there was no retaliation against Ceballos. | |||
Ceballos files a lawsuit against LA DA Garcetti in federal court. There, Ceballos loses. | |||
|holding=SCOTUS holds that the [[First Amendment]] doesn't protect a public employee from the consequences of the employer's displeasure. | |||
|rule=A '''public employee''' doesn't sacrifice freedom of expression as a condition of employment. Nonetheless, freedom of expression may be limited for expressions made in the course of the aforesaid employment. | |rule=A '''public employee''' doesn't sacrifice freedom of expression as a condition of employment. Nonetheless, freedom of expression may be limited for expressions made in the course of the aforesaid employment. | ||
|comments=*[[Section_1983_Litigation/Constitutional_Rights_Enforceable_Under_§_1983#Public_Employee_Free-Speech_Retaliation_Claims]] | |||
*[[First_Amendment_Sullivan/Outline#Government_Speech]] | |||
*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#Garcetti_v._Ceballos_.282006.29]] | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/garcetti-v-ceballos | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/garcetti-v-ceballos | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:42, July 14, 2023
| Garcetti v. Ceballos | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | May 30, 2006 |
Facts
Ceballos was a Los Angeles deputy DA (district attorney). He learned that an affidavit for a search warrant contained inaccuracies. Next, he wrote a memo recommending dismissal of the case. The supervisors of Ceballos ignored his recommendation.
Afterwards, the defense counsel called on Ceballos to testify concerning his observations for the search warrant.Procedural History
Ceballos filed a grievance stating that his candid testimony in the case resulted in his being passed up for a promotion. Investigators claimed that there was no retaliation against Ceballos.
Ceballos files a lawsuit against LA DA Garcetti in federal court. There, Ceballos loses.Holding
SCOTUS holds that the First Amendment doesn't protect a public employee from the consequences of the employer's displeasure.
Rule
A public employee doesn't sacrifice freedom of expression as a condition of employment. Nonetheless, freedom of expression may be limited for expressions made in the course of the aforesaid employment.
