Supreme Court to Rehear Whistleblower Case

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Friday that it will again hear arguments in the free-speech case of a whistleblower, apparently so that the new justice can break a tie.

The appeal was among about 20 that were heard, but not resolved, before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.

The Bush administration wants the court to use the case to make it harder for government whistleblowers to win lawsuits claiming retaliation. Justices had seemed conflicted last October when they took up the appeal involving Los Angeles County prosecutor Richard Ceballos, who asserted he was demoted for trying to expose a lie by a sheriff's deputy.

It was not clear from Friday's announcement if the case was the only one that will require a new argument session because of a 4-4 split. Justices also did not set a date for the case to be reargued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701076.html

[Punkingal]

1. Not wasting any time are they?

n/t

[rumpel]

2. same thought...

[ThomCat]

3. The two new schmucks need a chance to thank Bush

n/t

[flamingyouth]

4. kick

[Judi Lynn]

5. Justices to Rehear Speech Case From October

Justices to Rehear Speech Case From October
High Court's Announcement Could Indicate That O'Connor Cast the Decisive Vote

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 18, 2006; Page A15

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will have to rehear a free-speech case that was argued before the justices in October, the first sign of an alteration in its normal flow of business because of the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In a one-sentence order, the court said that it will restore Garcetti v. Ceballos , No. 04-473, to its calendar for reargument. The court did not say why. Historically, however, one reason for such a relatively unusual move has been that the court's preliminary vote in a case was 5 to 4 and one of the justices left the court before a result could be announced, leaving a 4 to 4 tie.

The most likely explanation for yesterday's order, therefore, is that O'Connor's was the fifth vote in the majority, and her departure left the court evenly split on the case.

Rather than announce a tie vote, which would automatically affirm the lower court's ruling, the court has decided to hear oral argument again as a full nine-member court, with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the bench.
(snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701950.html?nav=rss_nation

[Grown2Hate]

6. Has Alito cast a vote in any other decisions than his first...

...which was spoken about at some length on the board here, where he ruled in favor of NOT executing a man on death row? Just curious, because I've heard nothing more about it and I'd like to keep a close eye on the situation (that is, Alito's votes)...

[sandnsea]

7. Pretty important case

It'll likely mean the end of anybody complaining to their superiors in government. Not too good.

[lovuian]

8. We are going to see where this conservative court leads us

I have no doubt to loss of the Bill of rights!!!

[HuffleClaw]

9. ok, this is truly scary

"Rather than announce a tie vote, which would automatically affirm the lower court's ruling..."

a case that just happens to conveniently support the adminstrations' war on free speech too, and a clear sign of just what bush's new pet justices have in mind for the US.

[jamesinca]

10. Good thing Roberts is such a moderate Chief Justice

It is Roberts that would decide to rehear the case right? Now that Sammy is on board they feel they have a chance.

[legally blonde]

11. Here's a clip from the 9th Circuit's majority opinion

authored by Judge Meinhardt:

"To the extent that the defendants or our colleague may be suggesting the adoption of a narrower per se rule--a rule that would deny First Amendment protection to speech contained in routine reports or made in the performance of routine job functions--we strongly disagree. The mere fact that a public employee exposes individual wrongdoing or government misdeeds when making a regular as opposed to a special report does not, by itself, result in the denial of First Amendment protection. Whether a job duty is routine or non-routine is a far less important factor for purposes of First Amendment analysis than the content of the public employee's speech. Regardless of the form in which a government worker makes charges of corruption, criminal misconduct, or public waste, such charges raise serious public concerns that merit careful assessment and justify full application of the Connick principles. Indeed, a report that would ordinarily be considered routine by virtue of its form may well become non-routine by virtue of its content, such as when it contains serious charges of official wrongdoing. Finally, a per se rule stripping all First Amendment protection from speech uttered in the performance of routine, as opposed to non-routine, job functions would be inconsistent with the very nature of the Connick test which contains a second step that requires us to balance various factors, including some of those that concern our concurring colleague.
In short, that Ceballos prepared his memorandum in fulfillment of a regular employment responsibility does not serve to deprive him of the First Amendment protection afforded to public employees. Not only our own precedent, but sound reason, Supreme Court doctrine, and the weight of authority in other circuits support our rejection of a per se rule that the First Amendment does not protect a public employee simply because he expresses his views in a report to his supervisors or in the performance of his other job-related obligations. Such speech, like all other public employee speech, is subject to the full two-part Connick test described above."
Ceballos v. Garcetti
361 F.3d 1168
C.A.9 (Cal.),2004.

[maddezmom]

12. kick