GIL GARCETTI, et al. v. RICHARD CEBALLOS
Supreme Court Cases
547 U.S. 410 (2006)
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?
The Court ruled that statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties may be disciplined by their employer.
Respondent Ceballos, a supervising deputy district attorney, was 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 here, and followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal. 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. Claiming that petitioners then retaliated against him for his memo in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Ceballos filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit. 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 Ninth Circuit held that the memo’s allegations were protected under the First Amendment analysis in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, and Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138.
Advocated for Respondent
- Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer View all cases
- Scott L. Nelson View all cases
- Brian Wolfman View all cases
- Humberto Guizar View all cases
Advocated for Petitioner
- Cindy Lee View all cases