Running Head: READING COURT CASES (ARTIFACT 1) 1

Reading Court Cases

Justin M. Harp

College of Southern Nevada

READING COURT CASES (ARTIFACT 1) 2

Abstract

In this case the court explores just what falls under the 1st and 14th amendment and what rights

are to be or not to be left behind when a teacher enters employment. In this case it was okay to

write about school matters as it was a important public issue. Even if some of his numbers was

wrong he was substantially correct so as long as there was no proof that the teacher knowingly

wrote false statements or made them recklessly the board cannot dismiss him due to that reason.

But the teacher may have been dismissed if there was proof that this affected school operations

or the teachers efficiency. So the reason why he got off was because it was a important public

issue that was somewhat correct and they couldn’t prove that he made the mistakes willingly. If

this case was held after the year 2006 things made different because when you write statements

pursuant to your position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen you are not

protected under the first amendment (Because of the Garcetti v. Ceballos case).
READING COURT CASES (ARTIFACT 1) 3

Pickering v. Board of education,

1.) Citation: Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

2.) (a) Reason for the lawsuit - Because Pickering felt he was dismissed unfairly due to

publishing a newspaper that criticized how the Board of Education allocated school funds

between education and athletic programs and their method of informing or preventing the

informing of, and the real reasons as to why the taxpayers were being taxed more.

However the Board has stated that the newspaper had false information and was

detrimental to the school and its operations.

(b) identity and arguments of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), respectively: and © the lower

court’s decision if appropriate

Plaintiff’s argument (Pickering): He thought the letter would be protected under the first and

fourteenth amendment.

Defendant’s argument (Board) : It affected school operations and the efficiency of the school

staff due to the malicious falsity of the newspaper.

Lower court’s decision : The lower court affirmed his dismissal because the letter was

detrimental to the school which was supported by substantial evidence. The interests of the

school took a higher precedent over the appellant’s first amendment rights. (Illinois statute, Ill.

Rev. Stat., c. 122, 10-22.4 ,1963)

3. Issue. Concisely phrase, in the form of a question, the essential issue before the court. (If more

than one issue is involved, you may have two—or even more—questions here.)
READING COURT CASES (ARTIFACT 1) 4

As employees do we lose our first amendment rights when it comes to criticism of the interest of

the employers? The school which is governed by the state, is it infringing upon the rights of the

American citizen also making the fourteenth amendment null and void ?

4. Decision. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the court’s answer to the question

(or questions) in the Issue section above.

Yes to both. The Supreme Court of Illinois deemed that his dismissal on on the facts of the case

was unconstitutional as applied under the 1st and 14th Amendments.

5. Reason. Summarize as briefly as possible the reasons given by the court for its decision (or

decisions) and the case or statutory law relied on by the court in arriving at its decision.

a.)That his letter is protected under the 1st and 14th amendment.

b.)That without knowledge of whether the teacher knowingly or recklessly made the false

statements the teacher had a right to talk about issues of public importance without the risk of

being fired. (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968))

c.) The appellant’s were substantially correct so there was no proper basis for his dismissal.

d.)The false statements the appellants made did not show that it affected the efficiency of the

school operations or the teacher’s performance so he was entitled to the same protection of the

general public. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,(1964). Pp. 570-575. )

e.) The teacher’s interest in making a public comment as a citizen must be balanced against the

interest of the state in promoting the efficiency of it’s employee’s public services. (Keyishian v.

Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605​ ​-606 ,1967)

READING COURT CASES (ARTIFACT 1) 5

Reference

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Illinois statute, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 122, 10-22.4 (1963)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605​ ​-606 (1967)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,(1964). Pp. 570-575.