Supreme Court Rules Against “Whistleblowers”
This was an important case, especially in light of the myriad of politically-motivated leaks to the press about anti-terror programs from America's intelligence community.
Clearly this was the right decision. The first amendment certainly cannot be construed as permission for employees, be they of the government or private sector, to violate the oaths and agreements they entered into concerning the confidentiality of information they obtain at the work place. My doctor, for instance, cannot claim his right to free speech as giving him permission to tell his friends about my medical history. To say that it does would be lunacy, yet it seems to me that this sort unilateral dissemination of information at the whim of the individuals entrusted with it is exactly what was being argued for in this case.
All government employees have channels through which they are authorized to file grievances and alert others to misconduct. If these channels need to be reformed or expanded so that it is easier for these officials to report misconduct without having to violate confidentiality by running to the press that is a matter which should be addressed by our lawmakers. It is certainly not something that should be granted Constitutional protection by the un-elected judges sitting on the Supreme Court. Yet, had this case gone the other way, that is exactly what would have happened.
On a related note, this case was argued once before in front of the high cour when Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench, but had to be argued again now that Sam Alito has taken her place. Clearly Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court are already having an impact. It may well be that Bush's judicial appointments could be the most influential, if perhaps not the most remembered, legacy from his term in office.
WASHINGTON – The high court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.
By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees don't have carte blanche free-speech rights to disclose government's inner workings. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the court's majority, said the First Amendment doesn't protect "every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job." He noted in his ruling that there are whistleblower-protection laws.
"Official communications have official consequences, creating a need for substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure that their employees" official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the employer's mission," Justice Kennedy wrote. He said government workers "retain the prospect of constitutional protection for their contributions to the civic discourse." They do not, he said, have "a right to perform their jobs however they see fit."
Clearly this was the right decision. The first amendment certainly cannot be construed as permission for employees, be they of the government or private sector, to violate the oaths and agreements they entered into concerning the confidentiality of information they obtain at the work place. My doctor, for instance, cannot claim his right to free speech as giving him permission to tell his friends about my medical history. To say that it does would be lunacy, yet it seems to me that this sort unilateral dissemination of information at the whim of the individuals entrusted with it is exactly what was being argued for in this case.
All government employees have channels through which they are authorized to file grievances and alert others to misconduct. If these channels need to be reformed or expanded so that it is easier for these officials to report misconduct without having to violate confidentiality by running to the press that is a matter which should be addressed by our lawmakers. It is certainly not something that should be granted Constitutional protection by the un-elected judges sitting on the Supreme Court. Yet, had this case gone the other way, that is exactly what would have happened.
On a related note, this case was argued once before in front of the high cour when Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench, but had to be argued again now that Sam Alito has taken her place. Clearly Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court are already having an impact. It may well be that Bush's judicial appointments could be the most influential, if perhaps not the most remembered, legacy from his term in office.
