Supreme Court rules that First Amendment protects government employees who testify
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment.
But in the case of Edward Lane, who was fired from his job at an Alabama community college when his testimony helped convict a former state legislator on corruption-related charges, the court said he can't necessarily collect damages.
The ruling by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the freedom-of-speech case was a victory for government whistle-blowers. Two lower courts had ruled earlier that Lane, testifying as a public employee about knowledge he gained on the job, was not protected from retaliation by the First Amendment.
But the high court ruled that in testifying under subpoena, Lane was acting as a citizen, not a public employee.
“Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes,” Sotomayor said. “That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.”
Lane was an employee at Central Alabama Community College whose testimony helped convict former Alabama state representative Sue Schmitz. He was fired when he testified at Schmitz's first trial in 2008.
Lawyers for Steve Franks, former president of the two-year college, argued that Lane's testimony wasn't protected by the First Amendment because it was based on information he gleaned only from his job, and he was testifying as a state employee, not a citizen.
State and federal government lawyers had sided with Lane on the First Amendment issue.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Museum sleepover for adults sells out
- Credit-card-stealing virus ‘Backoff’ virtually undetectable, Homeland Security warns
- House GOP balks on young immigrants bill
- CIA admits Senate was spied on
- FDA will regulate labs’ ‘high-risk’ test devices
- CEO shot, wounded in Chicago, apparently by demoted executive
- Tea Party opposition threatens House GOP’s border bill
- Congress considers dangers of driving high
- IRS calls right-wing Republicans ‘crazies’ in emails
- 6 narcotics officers charged with racketeering
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media