1 prior history
1.1 original dispute
1.2 district court
1.3 court of appeals
1.4 supreme court
1.4.1 oral arguments
prior history
original dispute
downtown paterson
in 2005, jeffrey heffernan detective paterson, new jersey police. supervisor , chief of police both appointed city s incumbent mayor, jose torres, being challenged city councilman lawrence spagnola in year s election. heffernan friendly spagnola, former police chief, , informally supported campaign. not vote in election did not live in city. @ request of sick mother, did live in city, heffernan while off-duty picked spagnola lawn sign after previous sign stolen. other officers saw him @ distribution location holding sign , talking spagnola campaign staff. notified superiors, , next day officials demoted heffernan detective patrol officer perceived overt involvement spagnola campaign.
district court
heffernan sued city, mayor, , superior officers under 42 u.s.c. §1983 in federal district court new jersey, claiming rights of freedom of speech freedom of association had been violated. heffernan contended while had not engaged in protected speech, department acted on belief had, , department should not have demoted him on basis of erroneous belief.
in 2009, jury found heffernan , awarded him damages police officials , city. despite verdict, heffernan sought retrial because judge peter g. sheridan had not allowed him pursue freedom of speech claim; defense did because judge sheridan had allowed freedom of association claim. while considering these motions, judge sheridan became aware of conflict of interest through former law firm , set aside verdict, setting new date trial before judge dennis m. cavanaugh.
judge cavanaugh granted summary judgment defendants on freedom of speech claim based on earlier motions, holding heffernan had not engaged in protected speech rights not have been violated. in 2012, third circuit court of appeals reversed judge cavanaugh s ruling , remanded case him instructions allow heffernan present freedom of association claim , consider facts jury trial when reconsidering summary-judgment motions.
judge kevin mcnulty heard case on remand. after considering parties motions summary judgment again, ruled in city s favor in 2014. heffernan, ruled, had not engaged in protected speech or expressive conduct. judge mcnulty ruled heffernan not prevail on claims perceived speech protected, per ambrose v. robinson township, previous case on issue in third circuit, or actions protected since aided , abetted speech. judge mcnulty rejected similar claims freedom of association. decided dye v. office of racing commission, case in sixth circuit had held first amendment reached perceived political association, not precedent rely on since dye explicitly rejected ambrose, , district judge not reject circuit precedent.
court of appeals
on appeal third circuit, three-judge panel of judge robert cowen, judge morton ira greenberg , judge thomas i. vanaskie unanimously held city. in decision issued in 2015, judge vanaskie, writing court, reiterated judge mcnulty s finding heffernan s actions in picking sign mother did not constitute protected speech or association. distinguished case @ hand sixth circuit s ruling in dye noting in case, employers had inferred employees intent non-participation in partisan politics rather actual action had taken, had occurred in heffernan s case.
judge vanaskie instead found guidance supreme court s 1994 holding in waters v. churchill, in had upheld illinois public hospital s dismissal of nurse comments supervisor colleague, despite ongoing factual dispute substance of comments. court found hospital administration had made reasonable attempt investigate nurse had said before firing her. in case, court had said explicitly disciplining employees things did not did not rise level of constitutional violation.
supreme court
following third circuit s decision, heffernan petitioned supreme court certiorari, requesting hear case. after court considered both heffernan s petition , city s reply, granted petition on first day of 2015 term. both parties consented filing of amicus curiae briefs uninvolved parties believed had stake in outcome of case. national association of government employees, becket fund religious liberty, , thomas jefferson center protection of free expression filed amicus briefs in support of heffernan, while new jersey state league of municipalities , national conference of state legislatures filed briefs in support of city of paterson. united states government filed amicus brief in support of heffernan, motion appear @ oral argument, court granted, meaning solicitor general s office appearing @ oral arguments, held on january 19, 2016.
oral arguments
mark frost, arguing petitioner jeffrey heffernan, met questions justices: anthony kennedy asked clarification on particular right protected, , antonin scalia, samuel alito , chief justice john roberts questioned him whether rights infringed if not engaged in speech. justice scalia (who died before decision announced) argued there no constitutional right not fired wrong reason.
frost responded motives of government, rather actions of individual, important in case. assistant solicitor general ginger anders, arguing on behalf of united states amicus curiae in favor of heffernan, continued argument, stating there first amendment right not have adverse action taken against him employer unconstitutional purpose of suppressing disfavored political beliefs.
arguing respondents, thomas goldstein distinguished between political neutrality , political apathy. argued first amendment protects political neutrality, conscious choice not take position, not protect political apathy, when person not care , makes no particular choice neutral. heffernan claimed had no affiliation spagnola, respondents argued heffernan s actions constitute unprotected apathy rather conscious choice of neutrality. justice elena kagan questioned goldstein purpose of first amendment saying, idea has why government acted responded, s called individual right, not government wrong. frost took rebuttal respond goldstein s distinction between political neutrality , apathy, arguing there little distinction government acting impermissible reasons in both cases.
Comments
Post a Comment