Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The US Supreme Court has limited whistleblower protections for public disclosures based on free speech for most government workers. Garcetti v. Ceballos held that the First Amendment does not apply to situations that fall within the scope of the job description associated with the employment of each government worker. The Supreme Court decision ...
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to ...
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously expressed doubts about a whistleblower law, opening the door to the law's being declared unconstitutional by a Trump judicial appointee and ...
On January 13, 2023, Murray petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. On May 1, 2023, the Court granted certiorari. Oral argument was held on October 10, 2023. On February 8, 2024, Justice Sotomayor delivered a unanimous opinion, siding with Murray. The justices held that with the protections of SOX, a whistleblower does not have to prove ...
Haim's counsel reminded the DOJ that the Supreme Court has established that "federal prosecutors are prohibited from representing the Government in any matter in which they, their family, or their ...
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. [1]
Responding to Paxton's motion to the Supreme Court on Thursday, attorneys for the whistleblowers laid out a litany of arguments to derail what they said was Paxton's "repugnant ploy" to keep ...