The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the free speech rights of a community college employee fired for testifying under subpoena in a corruption trial. The Court seemed to agree that Edward R. Lane retained his First Amendment protections in court but hesitated over the issue of whether those free speech rights were clearly established at the time he testified. (The New York Times, April 29, 2014, by Adam Liptak)
Nina Totenberg, NPR, April 28, 2014, clarified the issue, “Several justices of diverse ideologies suggested that the former president of the college may be immune from suit in Lane’s case because at the time of the firing, the controlling legal opinion in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did not give First Amendment protection to government employees for their testimony at criminal trials.”
David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2014, thought that the Court would rule for Lane if they could reconcile the 2006 ruling Garcetti v. Ceballos. In that case, the Court ruled that “Although teachers and other public employees are free to speak as citizens… the 1st Amendment does not protect them if they learn something on the job and reveal it to the public over the objections of their employer,” wrote Savage.
The First Amendment Coalition filed an amicus brief on the case March 13 written by renowned First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams who held that a public employee had an obligation to testify truthfully and should by rights be able to do so without fear of being fired. The Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos stripped government employees of their free speech rights and Lane v. Franks is an opportunity for the Court to clarify the decision and provide some protection for employees. (First Amendment Coalition, March 13, 2014, by Peter Scheer)