First Amendment Tag

Home > Posts tagged "First Amendment" (Page 5)

Posted 26 Jun 2014 in Case Notes
BarricadeA local government can create a 35-foot buffer zone to restrict speech on a public street only if it has first made a serious effort to address the issue in other ways. That's the lesson of McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme-Court decision today that strikes down a Massachusetts statute that makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a public way or sidewalk within 35 feet of a location where abortions are performed. Although the Court found that the law is content-neutral—and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny—the Court ruled that the Commonwealth had "too readily foregone options" that would not substantially burden speech. What are those options?

Posted 20 Jun 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court held unanimously that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by a subpoena, outside the course of his or her ordinary responsibilities.5554035521_f6b59ccafa_n The good:  The Court was clear that if employees admit to wrongdoing while testifying they can still be disciplined and that false or erroneous testimony or testimony that unnecessarily discloses sensitive, confidential, or privileged information may balance the Pickering scale in the employer’s favor. The bad:  The Court read “official job duties” narrowly to exclude speech about information merely learned at the job. The ugly:  The Court doesn’t decide the obvious next question:  is an employee’s truthful sworn testimony, which is part of an employee’s ordinary responsibilities, protected by the First Amendment?

Posted 19 Jun 2014 in Case Notes

This morning, the Supreme Court decided Lane v. Franks, a case that this blog previously covered here. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the course of his ordinary job responsibilities. Image courtesy of Flickr by Mark Fischer (creative-commons license, no changes made)....

Posted 16 Jun 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT pillars Third Circuit
  • Rosano v. Township of Teaneck, No. 13-1263 (June 10, 2014) (in action by current and former police officers against Township alleging violation of Fair Labor Standards Act because it did not pay proper overtime and provide compensation for attending daily roll calls and putting on and taking off uniforms, affirming grant of summary judgment for Township).
Seventh Circuit

Posted 09 Jun 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:NinthCircuit First Circuit Fifth Circuit

Posted 02 Jun 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT stairs Sixth Circuit
  • Robertson v. Lucas, No. 12-3877 (May 28, 2014) (in case arising out of corrupted drug-trade investigation, affirming award of qualified immunity on malicious prosecution and false arrest claims, and affirming dismissal of Monell claim against Richland County and City of Cleveland).

Posted 27 May 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:Alexandria-court First Circuit
  • Gericke v. Begin, No. 12-2326 (May 23, 2014) (affirming denial of qualified immunity for police officers on First-Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim where plaintiff was arrested after she attempted to film a traffic stop).
Eighth Circuit
  • Walton v. Dawson, No. 12-4000 (May 20, 2014) (affirming in part and reversing in part denial of qualified immunity in failure-to-train claims against officers arising out of jail-cell attack that occurred after officers did not lock cell doors).

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in IMLA Briefs
That question arises in Lane v. Franks, No. 13-483, a Supreme Court case in which IMLA and the International Public Management Association have now filed a brief.Supreme Court The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the termination did not trigger First-Amendment scrutiny:
No one disputes that Lane was acting pursuant to his official duties as CITY'S Director when he investigated Schmitz's work activities, spoke with Schmitz and other CACC officials about Schmitz's employment, and ultimately terminated Schmitz's employment. That Lane testified about his official activities pursuant to a subpoena and in the litigation context, in and of itself, does not bring Lane's speech within the protection of the First Amendment.

Posted 07 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT stairs Second Circuit Fourth Circuit