Since 1968, the threshold inquiry for determining whether the First Amendment protected public employees from retaliation for their speech was whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. For almost forty years, courts focused on whether an employee spoke on a “matter of public concern” and paid little attention to whether the employee spoke “as a citizen.” As long as their speech concerned a matter of public concern, public employees were generally protected from retaliation if the employee’s interest in commenting on public issues outweighed the state’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performed
In the two years since the decision came down, courts and commentators generally have agreed that th...
The article presents an analysis on the advancement of public employee speech and interpretations of...
This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts\u27 treatment Of public employees\u27 First ...
In 1968, the United States Supreme Court determined it was illegal for public employers to retaliate...
In its 2014 decision in Lane v Franks, the Supreme Court held that a public employee deserved protec...
Resolving a circuit split, the Supreme Court declared in Garcetti v. Ceballos that the First Amendme...
Before the United States Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006, courts decided the ques...
Garcetti v. Ceballos does nothing less than redefine the whole conception of what role public employ...
The speech of public employees poses special problems under the First Amendment. As Justice O\u27Con...
The First Amendment is ordinarily thought to prohibit content or viewpoint discrimination. Yet publi...
This article examines two major developments stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garcet...
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held that public employees have no First Amendment protec...
This essay, to be published in the First Amendment Law Review\u27s forthcoming symposium issue on Pu...
This article reviews the Supreme Court’s rulings in public employee free speech cases, discusses the...
I propose to discuss Garcetti\u27s First Amendment reasoning as well as the implications of the § 19...
In the two years since the decision came down, courts and commentators generally have agreed that th...
The article presents an analysis on the advancement of public employee speech and interpretations of...
This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts\u27 treatment Of public employees\u27 First ...
In 1968, the United States Supreme Court determined it was illegal for public employers to retaliate...
In its 2014 decision in Lane v Franks, the Supreme Court held that a public employee deserved protec...
Resolving a circuit split, the Supreme Court declared in Garcetti v. Ceballos that the First Amendme...
Before the United States Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006, courts decided the ques...
Garcetti v. Ceballos does nothing less than redefine the whole conception of what role public employ...
The speech of public employees poses special problems under the First Amendment. As Justice O\u27Con...
The First Amendment is ordinarily thought to prohibit content or viewpoint discrimination. Yet publi...
This article examines two major developments stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garcet...
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held that public employees have no First Amendment protec...
This essay, to be published in the First Amendment Law Review\u27s forthcoming symposium issue on Pu...
This article reviews the Supreme Court’s rulings in public employee free speech cases, discusses the...
I propose to discuss Garcetti\u27s First Amendment reasoning as well as the implications of the § 19...
In the two years since the decision came down, courts and commentators generally have agreed that th...
The article presents an analysis on the advancement of public employee speech and interpretations of...
This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts\u27 treatment Of public employees\u27 First ...