Demers v. Austin

Last updated

Demers v. Austin (746 F.3d 402, 9th Cir., 2014) was a landmark decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, extending First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom. [1] Demers carved out an exception to a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Garcetti v. Ceballos) that denied free speech protection to public employees. [2] In doing so, Demers provided, for the first time in history, constitutional protection for faculty speech that criticizes policies and decisions of university administrations.

In 2009, Demers, a tenured faculty member in the Edward R. Murrow School (now College) of Communication at Washington State University, sued four administrators in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [3] action when they allegedly retaliated against him after he circulated a 7-Step Plan calling for a restructuring of the academic units and urging administrators to seek accreditation for the program. In 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment for the Defendant administrators, holding the plan was written as part of Demers's official duties and, therefore, was unprotected under Garcetti. The district court also held that the plan did not address a matter of public concern.

Writing for a three-judge panel in Seattle, lead judge William A. Fletcher declared that Demers's Plan was protected speech and dealt with matters of public concern. The appeals court reinstated the lawsuit. Fletcher wrote: "[T]eaching and academic writing are at the core of the official duties of teachers and professors. Such teaching and writing are 'a special concern of the First Amendment.' ... We conclude that if applied to teaching and academic writing, Garcetti would directly conflict with the important First Amendment values previously articulated by the Supreme Court. ... (which) has repeatedly stressed the importance of protecting academic freedom under the First Amendment. ... "

The university declined to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and eventually paid Demers $120,000 to drop the lawsuit. [4]

The Demers decision is precedent in only nine states in the West. There is no on-the-job free-speech protection for professors in the other 41 states, who can be punished for criticizing administrators' policies and decisions even when they deal with issues of teaching or scholarship.

Matthew Jay Hertzog, director of Educational Technology at Methodist College, writes that Demers v. Austin and other cases are establishing Constitutional protection for academic freedom. "With the decisions of the lower courts in these cases being reversed by various U.S. Courts of Appeals ... , the constitutionally protected rights of academics for their academic speech and writing is being recognized as a First Amendment protection. As social and political events within higher education over the past several years have led university administrators to question the parameters of Constitutional protections and challenge the academic’s right to freedom of speech, the U.S. legal system has remained firm in its interpretation of the law by protecting a professor’s civil rights as well as those rights awarded to their academic speech and writings. [5]

Demers himself has argued that the "single most important consequence of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Demers v. Austin is the constitutional protection that it offers for shared governance in nine western states. The assumption underlying the Appeals Court ruling is that teaching and scholarship are impacted by the structure of the organization and its resources. And if those who do the teaching and scholarship have no say in how academic units are structured and how resources are distributed, then the academic search for truth, knowledge and understanding of the world will be compromised." [6]

“Had the Ninth Circuit ruled the other way," legal scholar Kenneth White, a former prosecutor, writes, "then the state could fire professors at will if it didn’t like, for instance, the stance that a history professor took about a historical event, or a political science professor took about a political dispute, or any professor took about an issue of academic governance on a committee.” [7]

Related Research Articles

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that recognized the First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights. The Court famously opined, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Academic freedom is the right of a teacher to instruct and the right of a student to learn in an academic setting unhampered by outside interference. It may also include the right of academics to engage in social and political criticism.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

Michael William McConnell is an American jurist who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2002 to 2009. Since 2009, McConnell has been a professor and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is also a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and Senior Of Counsel to the Litigation Practice Group at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. In May 2020, Facebook appointed him to its content oversight board. In 2020, McConnell published The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution under Princeton University Press.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deborah L. Cook</span> American judge (born 1952)

Deborah Louise Cook is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Akron, Ohio. She served as a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court from 1995 to 2003.

Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith, Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and he considers himself to be a political independent.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from their position. The case was later distinguished by Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court held that statements by public employees made pursuant to their employment have no First Amendment protection.

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from prohibiting or punishing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David D. Cole</span> American legal scholar

David D. Cole is the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Before joining the ACLU in July 2016, Cole was the Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University Law Center from March 2014 through December 2016. He has published in various legal fields including constitutional law, national security, criminal justice, civil rights, and law and literature. Cole has litigated several significant First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, as well a number of influential cases concerning civil rights and national security. He is also a legal correspondent to several mainstream media outlets and publications.

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that public universities may subsidize campus groups by means of a mandatory student activity fee without violating the students' First Amendment rights.

Philip Lloyd "Phil" White was an American history academic and civil community organizer. A tenured professor of early American history at the University of Texas at Austin from the 1960s through 2000, White is acknowledged by many citizens of Austin, Texas, to have been a primary architect of "the Democratic grass-roots political activism that transformed Austin politics in the late 1960s and early 1970s".

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney (ADA). She had been fired by her superior, District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., when, after receiving a transfer she had fiercely resisted in private conversations with him and his chief assistant district attorney, she distributed a questionnaire to her fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with Connick's management practices. At trial, Judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana found the firing had been motivated by the questionnaire and was thus an infringement on her right to speak out on matters of public concern as a public employee. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed the verdict, Connick appealed to the Supreme Court.

Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held the public concern test limits Petition Clause claims by public employees. More specifically, state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment when they petition the government on matters of private concern. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, an employee must show that his speech related to a matter of public concern. The court held that this test also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause. The case is significant under the Petition Clause because 1.) it recognized that lawsuits are “Petitions” under the First Amendment and 2.) it explains that the Petition Clause and Speech Clause are not always coextensive, and leaves open the possibility that here may be additional claims under the Petition Clause which plaintiffs may invoke consistent with the purpose of that Clause.

<i>Urofsky v. Gilmore</i>

Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, is a case decided before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which concerned the matter of professors challenging the constitutionality of Virginia law restricting access to sexually explicit material on work computers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined the professors in the case against the state of Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned an earlier ruling by the District Court, and upheld the Virginia law.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of public employees. The Court held unanimously in favor of a schoolteacher fired for her critical remarks in conversations with her principal. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, with a short concurrence by John Paul Stevens.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public highschool could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a legitimate pedagogical concern.

Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony”. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2014. The case was decided on June 19, 2014.

References

  1. ↑ Susan Kruth, "Demers v. Austin Shifts Circuit Split on Faculty Speech Rights," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (September 6, 2013), retrieved September 5, 2020, from https://www.thefire.org/demers-v-austin-shifts-circuit-split-on-faculty-speech-rights
  2. ↑ Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
  3. ↑ Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.
  4. ↑ The suit was settled in October 2014. Source: David Demers
  5. ↑ Matthew Jay Hertzog, “The Misapplication of Garcetti in Higher Education,” Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2015(1): 203-225 (Spring 2015), pp. 223-224.
  6. ↑ David Demers, The Lonely Activist: An American Odyssey (Spokane, WA: Marquette Books, 2015), p. 432.
  7. ↑ Ken White, “Ninth Circuit Clarifies First Amendment Rights of Public University Professors,” Popehat (September 5, 2013), retrieved September 5, 2020 from <http://popehat.com/2013/09/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-first-amendment-rights-of-public-university-professors>. Popehat is a legal blog.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.