5-4 Garcetti v. Ceballos
9 snips
Nov 4, 2025 A fascinating analysis of the Garcetti v. Ceballos case reveals the Supreme Court's controversial ruling on public employees' speech rights. The hosts dissect the implications of limiting First Amendment protections for job-related speech and explore whistleblower laws. They critique the court's decisions, highlighting how this can empower bad-faith actors. Ethical duties of prosecutors and real-world examples of retaliation against dissent are also examined, painting a vivid picture of the challenges faced by public employees today.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Prosecutor Who Blew The Whistle
- Richard Ceballos investigated a deputy sheriff's false affidavit and wrote an internal memo recommending dismissal of the case.
- After he testified for the defense, Ceballos was demoted and denied promotion, prompting his First Amendment lawsuit.
Official Duties Muzzle Employee Speech
- The Supreme Court held speech made pursuant to official duties is not First Amendment protected for public employees.
- The new test replaces Pickering's balancing with a scope-of-job-duty rule, narrowing protections.
Perverse Incentives From The Ruling
- The decision creates odd incentives: report publicly to gain protection, not internally to supervisors.
- Kennedy suggested whistleblower laws and internal policies can replace constitutional protection, which the hosts call inadequate.