The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered new arguments in the case Ceballos v. Garcetti. Reargument is rarely ordered. According to Court watchers this order is likely an indication that the the vote on the case was 4-4. The reargument will allow Justice Alito the opportunity to cast the deciding vote. The significance of this case is that it will establish the extent to which public employees (e.g. teachers) enjoy First Amendment protections for blowing the whistle on illegal practices occurring within their office, agency or school. This posting is a followup to an earlier posting on this case.
Justice Alito has earlier stated that public employee’s have significant First Amendment rights while a Judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals citing a long line of precedents to support this position. That earlier case Sanguigni v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education 968 F.2d 393, involved the right of a teacher to complain in a school newsletter about loss of morale. She alleged she was harassed and given poor evaluations, as a result of the newsletter article. She sued and claimed First Amendment protections for her comments. Although Judge Alito ruled against her, he did state: "[t]he Court has held that First Amendment rights are implicated only when a public employee’s speech relates to matters of public concern.”
In that case matters of teacher morale did not implicate "public concerns" so there was no constitutional protection. Ceballos, in contrast, informed on illegal practices–falsified affidavits to obtain search warrants– in the District Attorney’s office and was fired. The issues involved certainly are matters of greater importance, as opposed to the issues in Sanguigni, but are the "public concerns" sufficiently weighty to meet Justice Alito’s standards ?
The ruling in Ceballos would be precedent for the courts when faced with a case of a teacher claiming First Amendment rights for informing on IDEA violations in his or her school, or informing on violations of a child’s constitutional rights in school. There is hope that Justice Alito will come down in a way that would be favorable to a teacher protecting a child’s IDEA rights. On the other hand, a negative ruling could further chill the rare teacher who will stand against the school and in favor of a child, when IDEA is not being followed. This case may also signal if Justice Alito will exercise independence from his conservative brethren, and follow precedent as both he and Justice Roberts testified at their confirmation hearings. The ruling is expected this year following the April reargument.