David Souter
Role at the time: Supreme Court justice, dissenting
Condemned
Response to this claim
The First Amendment does not protect public employees' duty-related statements from employer discipline.
“But why do the majority’s concerns, which we all share, require categorical exclusion of First Amendment protection against any official retaliation for things said on the job?”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Supreme Court opinions in Garcetti v. Ceballos547 U.S. 410; majority and Souter dissent
The majority addresses speech pursuant to public employees' official duties. The decision does not repeal statutory whistleblower protections and reserves scholarship and teaching.
Why we used this label
The subject is categorical exclusion of duty-related speech. Souter rejects that exclusion and favors balancing for some warnings. Acknowledging management interests does not make him a supporter of the categorical rule.