Supreme Court rules on political speech and the First Amendment
Source: yahoo
The case was brought by Jeffrey Heffernan, a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey, who was seen by fellow officers holding a yard sign for Lawrence Spagnola, a candidate in the citys mayoral election. Heffernan picked up the sign at the behest of his mother and delivered it to her, but other officers who saw Heffernan with the sign quickly told his supervisors. Those supervisors believed that Heffernan was involved in the Spagnola campaign, and demoted him the next day for overt involvement in the election.
snip
But in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuits decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, looks to the text of the First Amendment and the relevant federal statute that governs when one can bring suit in light of a violation of ones constitutional rights.
snip
Throughout the opinion, the majority assumes that the supervisors interference with political speech was constitutionally impermissible, but the Justices note that there are exceptions that allow restrictions on the speech of government employees. If, for example the speech impedes the efficiency or effective[ness] of a government service, then a supervisor can legally punish a subordinate for that speech. The Court did not rule on whether, in this particular instance, this exception was applicable, instead instructing the lower courts to consider that question.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed a dissent, writing that nothing in the text of §1983 provides a remedy against public officials who attempt but fail to violate someones constitutional rights. They maintain that, in order to have a successful claim, Heffernan would need to have proven that his free speech rights were actually infringed upon. However, Heffernan did not actually support Spagnolas campaign; although Heffernan was harmed, it did not amount to the right kind of harm under §1983. Still, the dissenters seem sympathetic to Heffernan, noting that demoting a dutiful son who aids his elderly, bedridden mother may be callous, but it is not unconstitutional.
The potential impact of this case on our understanding of the First Amendment is notable, as the Court expanded the notion of who can seek redress under a free speech claim. It determined that the actions and intentions of the government are more important than what aggrieved citizens are actually doing. It sent a signal that the Court is more interested in erring on the side of caution when it comes to fundamental constitutional rights.
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-political-speech-first-amendment-093424839--politics.html?nhp=1
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I'm not really a fan of the Hatch Act. I think it has the effect of stifling the free speech of government employees.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)especially where I live. Probably one third of the working folks in my region are federal employees and some most definitely have an agenda that is pretty far to the right of most on the right. I would prefer that they not be allowed to use their positions as bully pulpits, though that still happens out here... just like the SSS crowd.
As a seasonal temp in federal agencies, I am happy to not "go there" when I am under contract, and I do wear a uniform so I am glad to have the protection of diffusing argumentative comments from the GP with unbiased facts.
bluevoter4life
(788 posts)And I actually agree with the Hatch Act. It is very restrictive, but I don't feel government employees are in the business of promoting one party or another while on duty. The rank-and-file employees are allowed a little leeway in their political stances, such as being able to have candidate bumper stickers on their cars and attending rallies. The higher up you go in government though, the more restrictive your role becomes. You are NEVER allowed to promote candidates on-duty though, and, without looking at the regulations, I'm pretty sure you can't wear a candidates T-shirt to work.