Reference no: EM13985480

Summary and Brief These Cases;

1- Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006

2- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Brief Fact Summary. In protest of the Vietnam War, several students wore black armbands to school. The Respondent, Des Moines Independent Community School District (Respondent), adopted a policy that any students wearing the bands would be suspended for causing disruption. The Petitioners, Tinker and other students (Petitioners) refused to remove their armbands and brought suit seeking protection of their First Amendment constitutional rights to political expression.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case presents the landmark decision that a student does not shed his personal rights at the schoolhouse door.

Facts. In protest of the Vietnam War, several students wore black armbands to school. The Respondent adopted a policy that any students wearing the bands would be suspended for causing disruption. The Petitioners refused to remove their armbands and brought suit seeking protection of their First Amendment constitutional rights to political expression. After the Respondent invoked its policy, the Petitioners refused to remove their armbands and were suspended. They brought suit in federal court, seeking an injunction from the disciplinary practice, maintaining that they had done nothing disruptive. The District Court and Court of Appeals upheld the school action and an appeal was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court).

Issue. This case considers what happens when the fundamental rights of students collide with school policies, which are facially designed to lessen controversy.

Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006

Brief Fact Summary. Richard Ceballos (P) sued the government (D) for disciplining his communications which opposed government interests, on the ground that the government's action violated the First Amendment.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A public official may exercise protected freedom of speech only during private speech, ie, as part of his life as a private citizen, and not during his official duties.

Facts. Richard Ceballos (P) was an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. When he found that a sheriff had wrongly presented the facts in an affidavit for a search warrant, he made the matter known to the prosecuting attorneys in the case. They agreed with him that the affidavit was likely not correct. However, the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case. Following this, he revealed his belief to the defense counsel, and was subpoenaed by the defense. Later he sued the D.A.'s office on the ground that the D.A.s in his office were treating him badly in repayment for his cooperation with the defense, which cooperation formed part of his right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The district court found for the D.A. under the plea of qualified immunity, but this decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that qualified immunity did not apply since the speech by Ceballosconcerned matters which concerned the public and was therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Issue. Can a public official's speech only be guaranteed protection under the First Amendment if he speaks in his capacity as a private citizen and not under his public duty?