Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, et al., Petitioners v. Charles J Guarnieri (564 U.S. 379)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 20, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 564 U.S. 379 · 131 S. Ct. 2488
- Decided
- June 20, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. Among other rights essential to freedom, the First Amendment protects “the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U. S. Const., Arndt. 1. This case concerns the extent of the protection, if any, that the Petition Clause grants public employees in routine disputes with government employers. Petitions are a form of expression, and employees who invoke the Petition Clause in most cases could invoke as well the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. To show that an employer interfered with rights under the Speech Clause, the employee, as a general rule, must show that his speech was on a matter of public concern, as that term is defined in the precedents of this and other courts. Here the issue is whether that test applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause. Alone among the Courts of Appeals to have addressed the issue, the Court of Appeals for' the Third Circuit has held that the public concern test does not limit Petition Clause claims by public employees. For the reasons stated below, this conclusion is incorrect. I Charles Guarnieri filed a union grievance challenging his termination as chief of police for the borough of Duryea, a town of about 4,600 persons in northeastern Pennsylvania. His grievance proceeded to arbitration pursuant to the police union…
Excerpt of a 35,485-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.