Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Argued January 19, 2016
Decided April 26, 2016
Full case name Jeffrey Heffernan, Petitioner v. City of Paterson, et al.
Docket nos. 14-1280
Citations

578 U.S. ___ (more)

Opinion Announcement Opinion announcement
Holding
Police department's demotion of detective in response to mistaken belief he was supporting a challenger to the city's mayor in election violated his First Amendment rights regardless of his actual purpose. Third Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Breyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent Thomas, joined by Alito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I 42 USC § 1983

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights are violated when they are disciplined for engaging in speech protected under the First Amendment even when the employer mistakenly believes they have done so. The court reversed an earlier holding to the contrary by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case had been brought when Jeffrey Heffernan, a detective with the Paterson, New Jersey, police force, picked up a lawn sign for the candidate challenging the city's incumbent mayor in the 2005 election as a favor for his mother. While Heffernan himself did not actually support the candidate, after other officers saw him with the sign they told senior officers, including the police chief, who strongly supported the mayor. For his apparent support of the other candidate, they demoted Heffernan to beat patrol work as a uniformed officer.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority that the department's belief was all that mattered, since the Court's precedent in this area holds it is unconstitutional for a government agency to discipline an employee who does not work under a contract explicitly covering this for engaging in partisan political activity, as long as that activity is not disruptive to the agency's operations. Even if Heffernan was not engaging in protected speech, he wrote, the discipline against him sent a message to others not to exercise their rights. Clarence Thomas dissented for himself and Samuel Alito, agreeing that Heffnernan had been harmed, but his constitutional rights had not been violated.

History

The case took a decade to reach the Supreme Court. For most of that time it was in federal district court, where it was heard by three different judges. A jury verdict in Heffernan's favor was set aside, and a later summary judgment in the city's favor was overturned on appeal before being granted again in the third trial.[1]

Original dispute

In 2005, Jeffrey Heffernan was a detective with the Paterson, New Jersey, police. His supervisor, as well as the chief of police, were appointed by the city's incumbent mayor, Jose "Joey" Torres, who was being challenged by city councilman Lawrence Spagnola in that year's election. Heffernan was friendly with Spagnola, a former police chief,[1] and informally supported his campaign, although he could not vote in the election as he did not live in the city.[2] At the request of his sick mother, he went while off-duty to pick up a lawn sign for her after her previous sign was stolen. Other officers saw him at the distribution location holding a sign and talking to campaign staff. They soon notified superiors and the next day he was demoted from detective to patrol officer for his perceived "overt involvement" with the Spagnola campaign.[3]

District court

Heffernan sued the city, the mayor, and his superior officers under Section 1983 in the federal District Court for New Jersey, claiming that his rights of freedom of speech as well as freedom of association had been violated.[4] A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively. There, the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of a teacher fired after writing a letter to a local newspaper critical of its handling of a recent bond issue, [5] In a 1976 case, Elrod v. Burns, the Court further extended this protection to include partisan political activity.[6] Heffernan contended that while he had not actually engaged in any protected speech, the department acted on the belief that he had, which it could not do in this case.[7]

In 2009, a jury found for Heffernan and awarded him damages from the police officials and the city. Even though he received a favorable outcome, Heffernan sought a retrial because Judge Peter G. Sheridan had not allowed him to pursue the freedom of speech claim; the defense also sought a retrial because Sheridan had allowed the freedom of association claim. While he was considering these motions, Sheridan became aware of a conflict of interest through a former law firm and set aside the verdict, setting a new date for trial before Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.[8]

Cavanaugh granted summary judgment to the defendants on the freedom of speech claim based on their earlier motions, holding that Heffernan had not engaged in protected speech so his rights could not have been violated. In 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Cavanaugh's ruling and remanded the case to him with instructions to allow Heffernan to present his freedom of association claim and consider the facts from the jury trial when reconsidering the summary-judgment motions.[8]

Judge Kevin McNulty heard the case on remand. After considering the parties' motions for summary judgment again, he ruled in the city's favor in 2014. Heffernan, he ruled, had not engaged in any protected speech or expressive conduct. Judge McNulty also ruled that Heffernan could not prevail on claims his perceived speech was protected, per Ambrose v. Robinson Township, a previous case on that issue in the Third Circuit,[9] or that his actions were protected since they aided and abetted speech.[10] McNulty also rejected similar claims for freedom of association. He decided that Dye v. Office of the Racing Commission, a case in which the Sixth Circuit had held that the First Amendment reached perceived political association,[11] was not a precedent he could rely on since Dye itself explicitly rejected Ambrose and as a district judge he could not reject circuit precedent.[12]

Court of Appeals

On appeal to the Third Circuit, a three-judge panel of Robert Cowen, Morton Ira Greenberg and Thomas I. Vanaskie unanimously held for the city.[1] In a decision issued in 2015, Vanaskie, writing for his colleagues, reiterated McNulty's finding that Heffernan's actions in picking up the sign for his mother did not constitute protected speech or association. He distinguished the instant case from the Sixth Circuit's Dye holding by noting that in that case, the employers had inferred the employees' intent from their nonparticipation in partisan politics rather than an actual action they had taken, as had been Heffernan's case.[1]

Vanaskie instead found guidance from the Supreme Court's 1984 holding in Waters v. Churchill, where it had upheld an Illinois public hospital's dismissal of a nurse for her comments about a supervisor to a colleague despite an ongoing factual dispute about the substance of those comments, since it found the hospital administration had made a reasonable attempt to investigate what the nurse had said before firing her. In that case, the Court had said explicitly that disciplining employees for things they did not actually do did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.[1]

Supreme Court

Following the Third Circuit's decision, Heffernan petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, requesting they hear the case. After the Court considered both Heffernan's petition and the city's reply, it granted the petition on the first day of the 2015 term. Both parties consented to the filing of amicus curiae briefs by uninvolved parties who believed they had a stake in the outcome of the case—the National Association of Government Employees, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The United States government also filed an amicus brief, meaning the Solicitor General's office would be appearing at oral argument, which were held on January 19, 2016.[13]

Oral arguments

Mark Frost, arguing for petitioner Jeffrey Heffernan, was immediately met with questions from a number of the justices. Justice Anthony Kennedy asked for clarification on the particular right the petitioners were seeking to protect. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito all questioned him about whether his rights could be infringed if he was not actually engaged in any speech.[14] Justice Scalia (who died before the decision was announced) argued that there was "no constitutional right not to be fired for the wrong reason".[15] Frost responded that the it is the motives of the government not the actions of the individual which were important. Assistant to the Solicitor General Ginger Anders, arguing on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in favor of Heffernan, continued this argument stating that there is "a First Amendment right not to have adverse action taken against him by his employer for the unconstitutional purpose of suppressing disfavored political beliefs."[15]

Arguing for respondents, Thomas Goldstein distinguished between political neutrality and political apathy. He argued that the First Amendment protects political neutrality, the conscious choice to not take a position, but does not protect political apathy, when a person simply does not care and makes no particular choice to be neutral.[14] Justice Elena Kagan questioned him as to the purpose of the First Amendment saying, "the idea has to do with why the government acted" to which Goldstein responded, "It's called an individual right, not a government wrong."[15] Frost took a rebuttal to respond to Goldstein's distinction between political neutrality and apathy arguing that there is little distinction as the government is acting for impermissible reasons in both cases.[14]

Opinion of the court

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

In a 6–2 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court reversed the ruling of the lower Court and ruled that the employer's motive is material to First Amendment challenges. Citing Waters v. Churchill, Justice Breyer wrote,

[w]e conclude that, as in Waters, the government’s reason for demoting Heffernan is what counts here. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment[...]—even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee's behavior.[16]

The majority argued that such a reading was more in line with the text of the First Amendment. As the text of the amendment focuses on the government's abilities to make laws, it is the government's actions and motives, not the actual actions of citizens which are proscribed by the Amendment.[16] The Court made clear, however, that while it is impermissable to retaliate based upon perceived protected speech, the lower courts should take into consideration on remand whether Heffernan was disciplined for violating any different and neutral policies.[17]

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the dissent, in which Justice Alito joined. Thomas and Alito argued that the the previous ruling should have been upheld "because federal law does not provide a cause of action to plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have not been violated".[18] The dissent argues that motive is not enough; an employee must have actually engaged in protected activity and the employer retaliated against protected activity.[19] Thomas provides an example of a law allowing police to pull over any driver without cause. This would obviously violate the 4th amendment rights of anyone stopped, but people stuck in traffic who were injured by unconstitutional actions would not be able to sue because none of their rights were violated. Similarly, it is not enough for Heffernan to have shown injury but violation of an actual right as well.[20]

Commentary

The day after oral arguments, Gilad Edelman criticized the Court's assumption that Heffernan never exercised his First Amendment rights, saying, "the Supreme Court may miss an opportunity to make sure that cases like his really are rare."[21] Edelman forwarded interpretations of Heffernan's actions as well within the existing First Amendment precedent. Though he was not necessarily supporting the candidate, he was still talking and associating with people inside which is already protected under existing precedent. Edelman goes further and suggested that whether or not Heffernan intended to be identified as supporting the campaign, he was still punished for associating.[21]

Soon after the ruling was announced, the decision was largely praised. Jonathan Stahl, a writer at the Constitution Daily said that "The potential impact of this case on our understanding of the First Amendment is notable".[22] Similarly, The Economist called it "good law" and a "significant development" for expanding the existing jurisprudence to perceived speech not just actual speech.[23]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 777 F.3d 147, 149 (3rd Cir., 2015). Hereafter distinguished as Heffernan II.
  2. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 2 F.Supp.3d 563, 566 (D.N.J., 2014)
  3. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (slip op. at 2)
  4. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (slip op. at 2–3)
  5. ↑ Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)
  6. ↑ Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)
  7. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (slip op. at 2)
  8. 1 2 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 2 F.Supp.3d at 568.
  9. ↑ Ambrose v. Robinson Township, 303 F. 3d 488 (3rd Cir., 2002)
  10. ↑ Heffernan, 570–76.
  11. ↑ Dye v. Office of the Racing Commission, 702 F.3d 286 (6th Cir., 2012)
  12. ↑ Heffernan, 579–581.
  13. ↑ No. 14-1280, United States Supreme Court (April 29, 2016), http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1280.htm.
  14. 1 2 3 Howard Wasserman, Argument analysis: The First Amendment, political inactivity, and improper government motive, SCOTUSblog (20 January 2016), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-analysis-howard-wasserman/.
  15. 1 2 3 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (Oral Arguments)
  16. 1 2 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (slip op. at 6)
  17. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (slip op. at 8)
  18. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (J. Thomas dissenting) (slip op. at 1)
  19. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (J. Thomas dissenting) (slip op. at 4)
  20. ↑ Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) (J. Thomas dissenting) (slip op. at 6)
  21. 1 2 Gilad Edelman, Heffernan v. Paterson and an Absurd First Amendment Doctrine, The New Yorker (20 January 2016), http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/heffernan-v-paterson-and-an-absurd-first-amendment-doctrine.
  22. ↑ Jonathan Stahl, Supreme Court rules on political speech and the First Amendment, National Constitution Center (29 April 2016), http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/04/supreme-court-rules-on-political-speech-and-the-first-amendment/.
  23. ↑ S. M., Why freedom of speech might protect you when you aren’t speaking, The Economist (29 April 2016), http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/04/odd-cases-good-law.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.