I feel kinda bad now for having had a
NYTimes letter published critiquing Souter back when he was appointed. He looks better and better all the time (well, the rest of the court looks worse & worse). This from
DHS’s dissent in Ceballos:
The Court holds that “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Ante, at 9. I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that a government employer has substantial interests in effectuating its chosen policy and objectives, and in demanding competence, honesty, and judgment from employees who speak for it in doing their work. But I would hold 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, and when they do public employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection.
Lawyers Guns and Money points out,
He's particularly strong on the potential implications of this new doctrinal creation; as he notes, "[t]his ostensible domain beyond the pale of the First Amendment is spacious enough to include even the teaching of a public university professor, and I have to hope that today's majority does not mean to imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities, whose teachers necessarily speak and write "pursuant to official duties."
I feel kinda bad now for having had a NYTimes letter published critiquing Souter back when he was appointed. He looks better and better all the time (well, the rest of the court looks worse & worse). This from DHS’s dissent in Ceballos:
