Government Subsidized Speech

Question 1

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)

Answer 1

Public Employees, School cannot fire teacher for commenting on matters of public importance UNLESS they knowingly or recklessly made false statements. Balancing interests on both sides.

Question 2

Connick v. Myers (1983)

Answer 2

Public Employees, Pickering Balance, Myers fired for inner office questionaire. Speech was not on a matter of public concern, so not protected. Regulation of unprotected speech by public employee entitled to deference.

Question 3

Rankin v. McPherson (1987)

Answer 3

Public Employees, Pickering Balance, Cannot fire public employee for private speech on a matter of public concern.

Question 4

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (1995)

Answer 4

Public Employees, Pickering Balance, Struck down ban on honorariums.

Question 5

Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)

Answer 5

Public Employees, Speech made pursuent to official duty (not as private citizen) is unprotected speech. Do not receive Pickering Balance.

Question 6

United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973)

Answer 6

Public Employees, Hatch Act, Upheld law prohibiting political conduct by public employees.

Question 7

Elrod v. Burns (1976)

Answer 7

Public Employees, New sheriff fired employees from opposite party. Cannot fire based on political belief/association and interest in efficiency, loyalty, etc. can be served by other means.

Question 8

Branti v. Finkel (1980)

Answer 8

Public Employees, Cannot fire exclusively because of political affiliation. Patronage dismissal allowed when party affiliation is appropriate requirement for effective performance of public office.

Question 9

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990)

Answer 9

Public Employees, Extended Elrod and Branti Rule to Hiring, Promotion, Transfer, Etc. Cannot make employment decisions based on party affiliation/support.

Question 10

Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996)

Answer 10

Public Employees, Pickering Balancing Test, Court extended Pickering rule for protected speech for at-will government employees.

Question 11

Speiser v. Randall (1958)

Answer 11

Government Nickel, Struck down state law requiring veterans to disclaim revolutionary ideology to receive property tax exemption.

Question 12

Regan v. Taxation Without Representation (1983)

Answer 12

Government Nickel, Congress can deny tax-deductible contribution status to groups that engage in substantial lobbying. IRS can prohibit non-profits from engaging in efforts to influence legislation.

Question 13

Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of California (1984)

Answer 13

Government Nickel, Struck down law forbidding public broadcasters who receive federal grants from engaging in editorializing. Law was content-based and not narrowly tailored.

Question 14

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

Answer 14

Government Nickel, Abortion, Government Speech, Recipients of Title X funds prohibited from encouraging abortion. Upheld as decision to fund one activity not another and limiting recipients to the scope of the policy.

Question 15

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)

Answer 15

Government Nickel, Limited Public Forum, Establishment Clause, Struck down university rule that allowed funding only for secular publications. Denying religious group (Wide Awake) was viewpoint discrimination in limited public forum. Benefit to religion is incidental when there’s public access to facilities on religion-neutral basis.

Question 16

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998)

Answer 16

Government Nickel, Government may consider content when giving subsidies, but must remain viewpoint neutral. Artistic excellence and general standards of decency and respect for diverse values facially upheld.

Question 17

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013)

Answer 17

Government Nickel, Compelled Speech, Law conditioned funding on groups that have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Invalid because Congress cannot compel speech beyond defining the scope/purpose of the funding program.

Question 18

Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment (1980)

Answer 18

Overbroad, TPM, Permit required for charities (75% charitable receipts) to solicit contributions in public areas. Overbroad regulation of protected speech because fraud could be prevented in other ways and regulation also barred legitimate groups from soliciting contributions.

Question 19

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Answer 19

Prior Restraint, Pentagon Papers, Government can enjoin publication of material that jeopardizes national security, but the burden of justification is extremely high. Here, did not meet burden.