Ninth Circuit: The First Amendment Forbids City From Prohibiting Police Officers From Criticizing Police Department Or City

On September 5^th 2018, the Ninth Circuit found that a “Last Chance Agreement” restricting an employee’s negative comments about the police department, the city, or its employees, was an unconstitutional restraint on free speech.

In Barone v. City ofSpringfield, a victim advocate and a police department liaison to the city’s minority communities was investigated for two incidents. The first incident involved a tour during which students took photographs in restricted areas. The second incident involved a message left with dispatchers about a potential crime. After the investigation, the Officer was suspended for four weeks and placed on administrative leave. In order to return to work, she was presented with a mandatory Last Chance Agreement (“LCA”).  She refused to sign it “because it prohibited her from reporting on racial profiling and discrimination.”

After her refusal, the police chief provided her with an amended LCA. The amended agreement barred her from saying or writing anything negative about the department, the city, or their employees—although she could report complaints involving discrimination or profiling by the department. The amended LCA also said she would remain subject to a generally applicable order that barred her from publicly criticizing or ridiculing the department. She refused to sign this agreement as well and was subsequently terminated. She filed suit alleging, among other things, that the LCA violated her First Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit agreed that the amended LCA violated her constitutional rights. The Court specifically found that the Department’s concerns about potential disruptive speech were unconvincing. The Court concluded that the city needed evidence of past disruption or evidence that the anticipated harm is “real, not merely conjectural.” Without such evidence, the LCA unconstitutionally restrained Barone’s speech as a private citizen on matters of public concern.

U.S. Supreme Court: Demotion of Police Officer for Perceived Political Activity Violated First Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a government employer violates the First Amendment when it demotes an employee for what it perceives as political activity, even if it is mistaken. A government employer cannot punish an employee for participating in political activity protected by the First Amendment.

In 2005, Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer in Paterson, New Jersey. At that time, the city mayor was running for re-election against Lawrence Spagnola, a personal friend of Heffernan. The Police Chief and Heffernan's direct supervisor had both been appointed by the current mayor.

During the campaign, Heffernan's mother, who was bedridden, asked him to pick up a large Spagnola sign for her to replace one that had been stolen from her yard. Heffernan went to a Spagnola campaign office and picked up the sign. While there, he spoke for a time to Spagnola's campaign staff. Other members of the police force saw him holding the sign and talking to campaign staff.

The next day, Heffernan's supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer. They did this to punish Heffernan for what they thought was his overt involvement in Spagnola's campaign. However, he was not actually involved in the campaign. His supervisors had made a factual mistake.

Heffernan then filed a federal lawsuit against the city for violating his First Amendment rights. The city attempted to defeat his lawsuit by pointing to its factual mistake. It argued that because Heffernan was not actually involved in any political activity, it did not violate his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in Jefferson v. City of Paterson (2016) that the city's reason for demoting Heffernan is what matters. Even though Heffernan was not actually involved in any political activity, the city could not punish him for what it wrongly believed to be political activity. And Heffernan actually suffered harm because the city demoted him. That was enough to bring a First Amendment lawsuit. Also, allowing the city to escape liability in this case would likely discourage other employees from actually engaging in political activity.

Thus, a government employer cannot punish an employee for what it believes to be the employee's political activity. This is true even if it is mistaken and the employee has not actually engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

Court: "Liking" Sheriff Candidate on Facebook Protected by First Amendment

In Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013, 12-1671) 2013 WL 5228033, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the act of "liking" a candidate for Sheriff on Facebook by a deputy sheriff is protected speech under the First Amendment. As a result, it is unlawful for a sheriff to retaliated against an employee for "liking" his opponent.

The case started when sheriff’s office employees brought a civil rights action alleging that the sheriff retaliated against them by reappointing them because of their support of his electoral opponent. Two of the employees expressed support for the Sheriff’s opponent by “liking” his Facebook page and posting comments of encouragement for his upcoming election. After the sheriff was reelected, he refused to reappoint the employees to their positions as sheriffs deputies at the jail, a typical process in that jurisdiction.

 They sued, claiming that the sheriff violated their First Amendment rights to free association and free speech. Initially, the District Court sided with the sheriff, finding merely “liking” a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Court of Appeal said when one “likes” a political campaign's Facebook page, the user becomes associated with the campaign. A photo of the user is posted to the campaign’s profile, a link is provided on the users profile that others can use to access with the campaign’s page, and the “thumbs up” icon communicates the user’s support. The Court said the act of “liking” the page is like displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme court has held as substantive speech.

Voters Reject Prop 32

California voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 32, which would have restricted unions' access to payroll deductions for political activity.  Prop 32, widely known as the Special Exemptions Act, was the latest in a series of attacks on unions nationwide.  Public safety labor groups lead the charge in opposition to the proposition.

Supreme Court Vindicates Unions' Free Speech Rights

The Supreme Court recently upheld union free speech.  The Court struck down a Montana law restricting the ability of unions and other corporations to expend funds for political purposes. The Montana law stated a corporation may not “make an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” A small group of organizations including Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a lawsuit arguing that the law interfered with their First Amendment right of free speech.

In American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, the Court agreed, holding Montana's law directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. The Court’s decision relied heavily on the prior decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment prohibited the government from overly restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The ruling effectively frees unions to spend money on elections and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute unlimited amounts directly to candidates or political parties). The Court’s decisions validate the reason why people formed unions in the first place: to give workers the freedom to come together to voice their concerns and fight for their members.