Supreme Court Restricts Whistleblower Rights

Randy L. Harrington
In a 5-4 decision Tuesday the United States Supreme Court limited protections available to government whistleblowers. Bush’s new justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote. The decision means that government workers are not protected for blowing the whistle on governmental misconduct.

Proponents praised the decision and said that it will protect governments from lawsuits filed by disgruntled employees that claim to be legitimate whistleblowers.

Opponents predict that the decision will silence law enforcement officers who fear retaliation for reporting corruption, to squelching federal employees who want to come forward and report government corruption or national security issues.

The court’s decision is indicative of the Court’s shift to a more far right wing conservative form of justice. This decision comes on the heals of the high courts decision in the Brigham City Utah v. Stuart case that gave police officers an enhanced right to conduct warrantless searches, and arrests based upon a questionable reasonable suspicion if an occupant is seriously injured or in imminent danger of injury.

Sandra Day O’Connor known as a moderate justice was replaced by Alito by Bush when she retired, and left the court in January of this year. O’Connor encouraged whistleblowers to report sex discrimination in schools when she authored a 5-4 decision last year.

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority said “We reject,…the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties….”

The high courts decision overturned the Ninth Circuit Courts opinion when it held that Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos was constitutionally protected in his actions in writing a memo that questioned whether a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy lied in an affidavit for a search warrant. Ceballos, who was a calendar deputy with the district attorney, filed a lawsuit when he was alleged to have been demoted and denied a promotion for trying to expose the lie.


Justice Kennedy in his opinion said that: “Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees’ official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer’s mission.”

Justice David Souter in his dissent said that “Private and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government’s stake in the efficient implementation of policy.” Justice Souter was joined by Stevens, and Ginsburg. Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent in support of Ceballos, but on different grounds.

The Bush administration opposes absolute free-speech rights for whistleblowers. Bush’s two nominees, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts joined in Kennedy’s majority opinion.

Employment attorneys, and worker advocates have already raised the call for Congress to pass new laws that strengthen workers rights that would reverse the actions of the Supreme Court. Congressional action is highly unlikely this term because of the enormous task of immigration reform.
Print Email
Bookmark and Share

Randy L. Harrington

For more information about this author go to his WEB SITE at:
RANDY L. HARRINGTON

OR his blog AT:

RANDY L. HARRINGTON BLOG

Got Debt?  Get Debt Wise.