'Anticipation of a Hostile Overreaction': Judge Strikes Down Blocks on Court Admin Staff's Political Speech
"In this court's view at least, the First Amendment freedoms of fair and dedicated professionals should not be sacrificed at the altar of partisan myopia," Judge Christopher Cooper wrote.
April 29, 2020 at 05:42 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday ruled against the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' code banning staff from participating in political speech, finding the office went too far in implementing the prohibitions.
The AO adopted the restrictions in 2018, which included bans on staff donating to candidates and belonging to political parties. Director James Duff argued they were necessary in part to maintain the independence of the judiciary, but two staffers alleged it violated their First Amendment rights in a lawsuit brought forward by the American Civil Liberties Union.
U.S. District Judge Christopher "Casey" Cooper issued a preliminary injunction in 2019, temporarily halting all but two of the restrictions from going into effect. On Wednesday, he made that injunction permanent and ruled the code only applied to top AO officials, including Duff.
In a 46-page opinion, Cooper said the country's political discourse is "fractious and hyper-partisan" and some might "seek to exploit those divisions—through social media or other means—to advance their position on a policy issue or legislative proposal affecting the judicial branch." He applauded the AO's efforts to "counter these potential effects."
"But allowing the challenged restrictions to stand because someone might twist routine civic expression to their political advantage strikes the court as akin to endorsing the proverbial heckler's veto: muffling the speaker in anticipation of a hostile overreaction by the listener," Cooper wrote.
Referencing declarations submitted by government officials about how members of Congress and their staff might take issue with the AO because of a staffer's political activity, Cooper said "the problem would lie with Congress (and indeed the country), not the AO."
"In this court's view at least, the First Amendment freedoms of fair and dedicated professionals should not be sacrificed at the altar of partisan myopia," the judge wrote.
However, Cooper did allow two of the AO's restrictions to remain in place: Those blocking staff from organizing events for candidates and from driving voters to the polls on behalf of a party or candidate.
"Because they involve more committed and visible participation in elections and campaign management, a member of the public could more reasonably conclude that these two activities demonstrate a partisan tie so enduring that it could inspire an AO employee to inject partisan affiliations into her performance of day-to-day duties," Cooper wrote.
The ruling comes amid a debate on the politicization of the court system. President Donald Trump and others have attacked federal judges who have ruled against them, citing the political affiliations of the president who tapped them for the bench, as Trump has reshaped the federal judiciary with his own appointees.
Some, including Chief Justice John Roberts, have at times spoken out against those remarks, saying they undermine the integrity of the courts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
3 minute read5th Circuit Judge Jones Slams Proposal for Greater Amicus Brief Funding Disclosure
Trending Stories
- 1Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 2Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 3How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 4Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 5Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250