On June 17th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee’s speech who criticized a school superintendent was made pursuant to his official job-duties and, thus, fell within the large ambit of Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). The decision shows the vast reach of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Garcetti that created a categorical exception for job-duty speech that limited public employee First Amendment retaliation claims.
On May 26th, New Mexico journalist Tabitha Clay filed a lawsuit against the Rio Arriba County Sheriff’s Office. Clay claims local law enforcement violated her First Amendment rights by allegedly retaliating against her and withholding information after she wrote an article in May of 2019 detailing a sheriff’s deputy’s deployment of a taser on a 15-year-old special education student.
The lawsuit claims Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton used his official position to retaliate against the company by issuing a civil investigative demand (CID) seeking documents related to the company’s content moderation policies. Twitter’s lawyers said that Paxton’s actions infringed on the company’s First Amendment right to “make decisions about what content to disseminate through its platform.”
Private prison officials at a halfway house in California seized an incarcerated journalist’s phone and delayed his release after he texted a colleague about a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court on February 2nd.
For almost a year, women detainees in an immigration detention center in Ocilla, Georgia have tried to call public attention to a pattern of medical neglect and mistreatment, many at the risk of deportation. The pattern of retaliation led to what might at first sound like a paradox: a free-speech group asking the court to block public access to records.