Opinion_of_the_Court Heffernan_v._City_of_Paterson

justice stephen breyer delivered opinion of court.

in 6–2 decision authored justice stephen breyer, court reversed ruling of lower court , ruled employer s motive material first amendment challenges. citing waters v. churchill, justice breyer wrote,

[w]e conclude that, in waters, government s reason demoting heffernan counts here. when employer demotes employee out of desire prevent employee engaging in political activity first amendment protects, employee entitled challenge unlawful action under first amendment ... —even if, here, employer makes factual mistake employee s behavior.

the court remanded case third circuit , made clear in opinion that, while impermissible retaliate based upon perceived protected speech, lower courts should take consideration whether heffernan disciplined violating different , neutral policies. majority provided 3 main arguments in support of reasoning: interpretation more in line text of first amendment, better served first amendment s purpose of limiting political patronage, , such interpretation not burden employers.

justice breyer argued unlike fourteenth amendment, focuses on rights of people, first amendment focuses on actions of government when says, congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech. text of amendment focuses on government s abilities make laws, government s actions , motives, not actual actions of citizens, proscribed amendment. while policy @ issue not law of congress, actions still of government official infringed upon rights guaranteed first amendment.

the court supported interpretation recognizing first amendment sought prevent government actions discouraging protected activity. citing branti v. finkel, court pointed out precedent never required plaintiffs in political affiliation cases show change in allegiance successful, , extended logic case: potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech still exists, regardless of factual basis of employer s reasoning. because employees thinking of engaging in protected activity equally dissuaded incorrect dismissal correct dismissal, both reasonings should considered in violation of first amendment.

respondents argued finding employers liable factual mistakes place substantial costs upon employers. court rejected argument, saying employee still need prove employer acted out of improper motive. referring heffernan s case , it, court said employee will, if anything, find more difficult prove motive, employee have point more own conduct show employer s intent .

dissent

justice thomas authored dissent.

justice clarence thomas authored dissent, in justice samuel alito joined. justice thomas argued previous ruling should have been upheld because federal law not provide cause of action plaintiffs constitutional rights have not been violated . dissent focused on text of statute heffernan suing under: 42 u.s.c. § 1983. statute provides cause of action rights have been violated government. because heffernan maintained had not been exercising first amendment rights, dissent argued rights not have been violated, , section 1983 claim requires employee engage in protected activity , employer retaliate against activity.

the dissent argued that, section 1983 claim valid, harm alone not enough; has right kind of harm. thomas provided example of law allowing police pull on driver without cause. violate fourth amendment rights of stopped, people stuck in traffic injured collateral damage of unconstitutional actions not able sue because none of rights violated. similarly, not enough heffernan have shown injury violation of actual right well. dissent, if dismissal wrong reason , harm suffered, dismissal cannot infringe upon rights never exercised.

further supporting argument, dissent cited monterey v. del monte dunes @ monterey, ltd. argue section 1983 claim falls under tort law, in order draw distinction between how attempts handled under tort , criminal law. under criminal law, factually impossible attempt commit crime, such trying steal empty pocket or defraud no money, can still tried attempt. no such doctrine exists in tort law. because heffernan not engaged in protected activity, police department have attempted deprive him of right, suit must fail because there no attempted torts.