in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos, in which they held that government employees are not protected by the First Amendment when they report concerns at work. This awful decision served as an impetus for advocates of employee rights, civil rights, and free speech issues, to band together and demand a comprehensive whistleblower law to protect government employees. While advocates continue to battle for whistleblower rights in Congress, federal courts have begun to recognized the ill-conceived policies of the Garcetti decision. Recently, we told you about a 10th Circuit federal appeals court decision that allowed a building inspector whistleblower to have his day in court. Now, the 4th Circuit has produced a great decision in favor of a Baltimore policeman who reported misconduct in the police shooting of an unarmed elderly man.
As pointed out by this article, posted on The First Amendment Center website, Judge Wilkinson's concurring opinion in that case, Andrews v. Clark, is a powerful rebuke of the policies underlying the Garcetti decision. In his concurrence, Judge Wilkinson says that throwing out the whistleblower's case "would have profound adverse effects on accountability in government" and “informed scrutiny of the workings of government...is impossible without some assistance from inside sources such as Michael Andrew.” This decision, along with Judge Wilkinson's concurrence, is great evidence that our federal judges get it.
I highly recommend reading the article, as well as the Andrews v. Clark decision.
.jpg)