Justice Scalia’s Curious Memory Lapse. NO, not the one everyone’s talking about. [Post typo-corrected]
Clarification appended below.
During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren’t shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment.
“What kind of message are we giving when we’re telling employees, you’re subpoenaed in a trial, go and tell a falsehood because otherwise you can be fired?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorneys in the case.
The Fifth Amendment protects state employees against self-incrimination on the witness stand, but “it doesn’t protect the department he works for from being incriminated,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
— Justices suggest public employees’ testimony is protected, Mary Orndorff Troyan, USA Today, today
It’s nice to know that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t protect the department he works for from being incriminated. It would be nicer still to know that the First Amendment, so vaunted these days by the Supreme Court as allowing the purchase of legislative votes as long as there’s no formal purchase receipt issued by the legislator/seller, that that Amendment protects the truthful speech of public-employee whistleblowers, and not just the speech of public employees who don’t want to speak in support of big government by being compelled to pay a fee to the union that is negotiating the terms of their employment (pay, benefits, working conditions) and that will represent them in disputes with the employer. (Okay, the last part of that compound sentence is based on a comment by Alito during argument in January in a case called Harris v. Quinn. The opinion in the case hasn’t been issued yet.)