Garcetti v. Ceballos
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Garcetti v. Ceballos?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.[1]
Quick Facts Garcetti v. Ceballos, Argued October 12, 2005Reargued March 21, 2006 Decided May 30, 2006 ...
Garcetti v. Ceballos | |
---|---|
Argued October 12, 2005 Reargued March 21, 2006 Decided May 30, 2006 | |
Full case name | Gil Garcetti, Frank Sundstedt, Carol Najera, and County of Los Angeles v. Richard Ceballos |
Docket no. | 04-473 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 410 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1951; 164 L. Ed. 2d 689; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4341; 74 U.S.L.W. 4257; 152 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 60,203; 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 42,353; 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 737 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted to defendants, Ceballos v. Garcetti, No. 00-cv-11106, 2002 WL 34098285 (C.D. Cal. January 30, 2002); reversed, 361 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 1186 (2005). |
Holding | |
Statements made by public employees pursuant to their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment from employer discipline. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
Dissent | Stevens |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
Dissent | Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Close