This might be the most bizarre Supreme Court case I've ever seen

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Yeah, okay. Just like the Kelo decision says so much about Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy...

The lower court here--the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals--affirmed the initial ruling by a Federal judge that the Supreme Court has now overturned. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling, but Thomas' dissent is based on case law and is hardly some sort of pulled-out-his-ass opinion. FWIW, the opinion of the 3rd Circuit tracked Thomas' dissent and was authored by Judge Thomas Vanaskie, an Obama appointee. The bastard.
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two most conservative members, dissented. Although they acknowledged that the demotion may have been "wrong," they would have upheld it as immune to court challenge."

Yes? Is there not a difference between wrong and legal? Or wrong and unconstitutional? Or wrong and violating one's constitutional rights? These are important distinctions, and the very purpose of the SCOTUS. And it's a key difference in conservative and liberal philosophy of the purpose of the courts.

Here's a bit more of Thomas' dissenting thoughts courtesy of the SCOTUS blog:

Thomas’s dissent similarly began with the text of Section 1983 and the requirement that the plaintiff be deprived of a constitutional right. But, he argued, no deprivation occurred in this case. Because Heffernan, by his own admission, did not speak or attempt to speak on a matter of public concern or in support of a political candidate, he was not deprived of a First Amendment right. Nor could Heffernan prevail by asserting his right not to speak or associate with the campaign, since it was his perceived association with the campaign, not his non-association with it, that caused his demotion. Thomas reduced Heffernan’s case to a claim “that the City tried to interfere with his constitutional rights and failed” because he was not exercising those rights; this is the equivalent of a factually impossible attempt. But there are neither “attempted torts” nor attempted constitutional violations, only actual ones.

In Thomas’s view, the majority’s focus on the government’s reasons for demoting him did not rescue Heffernan’s claim. Section 1983 provides a cause of action only for unauthorized acts that infringe constitutional rights, not for all acts that cause harm. That government acted unconstitutionally does not necessarily mean it violated the constitutional rights of any particular individual. Thomas offered an example of a (clearly unconstitutional) law authorizing police to arbitrarily stop any vehicle to check for license and registration; a motorist who was not stopped pursuant to that policy, although perhaps harmed by having to wait longer in traffic while others were stopped, would not have a valid Section 1983 claim because that harm did not amount to a violation of his right against unreasonable seizure. Similarly, Heffernan did not suffer the “right kind of injury” from his demotion, Thomas maintained, because his right to speak or assemble was not violated, since he was not speaking or assembling.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/o...-first-amendment-even-with-a-factual-mistake/
 
Last edited:

MarkEsq

Clever title pending.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
1,139
Age
56
Location
In the wilds of Texas. Actually, the liberal oasi
This really is a fascinating case and at some point (soon) I'll read the opinion. My initial impression, though, is to think it was rightly decided by the Supremes because I think they correctly put the focus on the motives of the government actor. Maybe the claim fails under section 1983 for lack of harm to a right, but he also brought this under the First Amendment which allows for a broader look at the facts, and the First Amendment has long been concerned with the "chilling effect" of govt actions.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
This really is a fascinating case and at some point (soon) I'll read the opinion. My initial impression, though, is to think it was rightly decided by the Supremes because I think they correctly put the focus on the motives of the government actor. Maybe the claim fails under section 1983 for lack of harm to a right, but he also brought this under the First Amendment which allows for a broader look at the facts, and the First Amendment has long been concerned with the "chilling effect" of govt actions.

From the summary of the 3rd Circuit I linked to above (my boldface):

Finally, Heffernan argued he was entitled to proceed to trial for his free-speech and free-association claims under a "perceived-support" theory. Under this theory, an employee could file suit if he or she were disciplined for political activity even if the alleged political activity didn't actually take place. The Third Circuit, however, explained that its own binding precedent did not allow such an argument to be made. A free-speech retaliation claim is actionable only where the adverse action at issue was prompted by an employee's actual, rather than perceived, exercise of constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
As I said, this seems to track with Thomas' dissent (my boldface):

There are two ways to frame Heffernan’s First Amendment claim, but neither can sustain his suit. As in most§1983 suits, his claim could be that the City interfered with his freedom to speak and assemble. But because Heffernan has conceded that he was not engaged in protected speech or assembly when he picked up the sign, the majority must resort to a second, more novel framing. It concludes that Heffernan states a §1983 claim because the City unconstitutionally regulated employees’ political speech and Heffernan was injured because that policy resulted in his demotion. See ante, at 6. Under that theory, too, Heffernan’s §1983 claim fails. A city’s policy,even if unconstitutional, cannot be the basis of a §1983 suit when that policy does not result in the infringementof the plaintiff ’s constitutional rights...

Whether the employee engaged in such speech is the threshold inquiry under the Court’s precedents governing whether a public employer violated the First Amendment rights of its employees.

But I think the citing of Waters v. Churchill by Breyer is the stronger argument here, insofar as it better captures the intent of the First by relying on the issue of motive with regard to the government:

We conclude that, as in Waters, the government’s reason for demoting Heffernan is what counts here. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and 42 U. S. C. §1983—even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior.

The caveat I would add to all of this is that the actions of the City of Patterson in this case should be illegal, First Amendment or no First Amendment. Which I think is something that Thomas would probably allow, as well. Heffernan was basically demoted for actions taken on his own time that were not illegal and did not violate any requirement of his employment.
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
The problem (or at least one of the problems) I have with Thomas and Alito (and the late Antonin Scalia) is that they view law as a pristine and separate entity unto itself, completely divorced from its effects and consequences.

In their view, imo, whether something is wrong or not is irrelevant. Whether the consequences of affirming or striking down the law are hugely significant is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the law says. And as conservatives, they believe in interpreting the law as narrowly as possible.

That is a judicial viewpoint which is not open to argument, because it is a fundamental belief on what the law is. I understand the point that we cannot ignore a law simply because we believe it to be wrong. Or refuse to enforce a law for the same reasons – although in practice, that's exactly what''s often done in every court across the land. At least, until a test case is forced onto the court where they must make a decision.

And laws and the intent behind them are not always clear – that's why we have judges, and that's why we get dissenting opinions on so many laws. But viewing laws in a vacuum, divorced from any real life situations may make a tidy little package, but I don't think it's a very useful or positive way of dealing with things.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
That's all good and well, but I guess it would be helpful to demonstrate the role of that viewpoint specific to this case, particularly since the Court was being asked to overturn a decision from the 3rd Circuit that does not appear to be emanating from the same ideological position commonly ascribed to Thomas.

And I think some cases are just about the specifics therein; there isn't always a wider conservative/liberal implication to them which is why--shocker of shockers--SC Justices don't always break on the assumed conservative/liberal lines.

So here we have a case decided 6-2. Maybe it would have been 6-3 if Scalia was around. Maybe not. Despite the assumptions evidenced by most in this regard, Scalia and Thomas don't always vote in lock-step.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
The problem (or at least one of the problems) I have with Thomas and Alito (and the late Antonin Scalia) is that they view law as a pristine and separate entity unto itself, completely divorced from its effects and consequences.

In their view, imo, whether something is wrong or not is irrelevant. Whether the consequences of affirming or striking down the law are hugely significant is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the law says. And as conservatives, they believe in interpreting the law as narrowly as possible.

I agree, and this has a disproportionately bad effect on vulnerable populations, the people the founding fathers themselves may not have had in mind at all (obviously, to them, "all men are created equal" didn't mean women, black people, Native Americans and others, and LGBTQ people probably weren't on their radar at all).

Very narrow, conservative interpretations of the constitution may not be so terrible in a world where the lawmakers themselves are concerned primarily with consequences of laws for all people and legislate with an eye to leveling the playing field and making life better for people who've gotten the dirty end of the stick for a long time. But when this isn't the case, these rulings can be devastating. And saying, "The lawmakers are free to change the law if it's not working or is unfair," comes across as the worst mockery to people whom the lawmakers don't care about (or are afraid to serve because that group isn't popular in their state or district). When 51% of the electorate are voting for lawmakers who don't care about the little guy (or various minority groups), then a narrow interpretation can become a tyranny of the majority--the very thing the constitution was intended to prevent (imo).
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I refer you to the original quote from NPR. They acknowledged that the action taken against the deputy was wrong, but ruled that it was immune to court challenge – a very clear example of how their reading of law takes precedence over whether the actions taken by that department were improper or not.

This kind of thinking is, tonmy mind, similar to the case of Lilly Ledbetter. The court ruled she could not sue because the statute of limitations had run out. Her argument was that there was no way she could have known about her salary discrepancy, and she filed her lawsuit as soon as she became aware of the situation.

The ruling that you must file within the statute of limitations even if you were prevented from the knowledge needed to file is legally understandable and absolutely absurd.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
The ruling that you must file within the statute of limitations even if you were prevented from the knowledge needed to file is legally understandable and absolutely absurd.

Definitely. And it's also got a sinister edge to it, because it gives employers an incentive to keep employees in the dark as long as possible.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Some issues of "wrong" simply require laws to address them. Not everything under the Sun has a fix via the SCOTUS and/or the BoR. It's a major error imo to assume that it does.

Regardless, as I noted I agree with the ruling on this case. And as I noted, the ruling from the 3rd Circuit was essentially in line with the dissent authored by Thomas.

Beyond that, Kelo still hasn't been overturned...
 

chompers

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 19, 2013
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
384
A case of following the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
 

StuToYou

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
635
Reaction score
31
Yes, fluid societal changes and the messy nature of life, tends to 'make an ass' of the law - especially if a judge does not use judgement. Any good law lecturer will tell you making a judgment requires a wide range of skills, usually described as 'wisdom'.

Some judges run from wisdom because it's messy, unclear and involves a level of faith and risk.

They hide behind the letter of the law, reassuring themselves that they've done their duty - because it's all there, in black and white.

I suppose another definition of conservatism, might be 'one who views issues as either black or white'.
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
Yes, fluid societal changes and the messy nature of life, tends to 'make an ass' of the law - especially if a judge does not use judgement. Any good law lecturer will tell you making a judgment requires a wide range of skills, usually described as 'wisdom'.

Some judges run from wisdom because it's messy, unclear and involves a level of faith and risk.

They hide behind the letter of the law, reassuring themselves that they've done their duty - because it's all there, in black and white.

I suppose another definition of conservatism, might be 'one who views issues as either black or white'.

care to provide cites for any of this?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Just to be clear here, this case involved a police officer--Heffernan--who was demoted ostensibly on the order of the mayor of Paterson because the officer appeared to be supporting the mayor's opponent in an upcoming election (the officer was not actually doing that; he was at the opponent's campaign office to get a sign for his mother).

The officer filed suit against the city for infringing his First Amendment rights. He won a jury verdict but the judge had to recuse himself for conflict of interest and throw out the verdict. The next judge ruled against the officer. The decision was appealed to the 3rd Circuit which ruled as I detailed above, quashing three different arguments advanced by Heffernan (summary here).

Understand that Heffernan was seeking relief for his unfair treatment based solely on his First Amendment rights being infringed. Here's the code (1983, as Mark says). The issue, as I understand it, is whether or not the motive of the offending party is sufficient to allow a claim and therefore a redress. The 3rd Circuit said no, based on precedent and case law, the Supreme Court reversed the 3rd Circuit based on other case law. The Dissent followed the argument of the 3rd Circuit.

All that said, this decision is very narrow and very specific to this situation. Imagine, for a moment, that Heffernan did support the opponent and went to the campaign office to help. In such a situation, there is no question that he would have been deprived of his rights, according to the 3rd Circuit and to the SCOTUS, both the Decision and the Dissent.

But imagine instead that he was demoted because the mayor heard Heffernan was dating the mayor's ex-girlfriend, or he was demoted because he was seen at a Devil's game in a Ranger's jersey. In my mind, that would be every bit as wrong. Yet he'd have no recourse under this Federal statute, at all. And this is something that came up in the Q&A: could Heffernan have sought redress via the collective bargaining agreement that covered his employment or under other State laws? I think he could have and I'm not sure why he didn't, because having a petty little snot of a mayor like Paterson apparently has (had?) is not good and this kind of bullshit should be stomped out, whenever possible.

The point is, this decision isn't establishing new protections for public employees from retaliatory behavior at all. It's simply addressing this one somewhat unusual situation. And the city of Paterson is--imo--being run by complete idiots because this case has now cost the city a boatload of jingle, far more than the original jury award of $100,000.
 
Last edited:

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
My confusion was from rob's quoted bit that the SC "threw out the case." But in fact they overturned it. I thought throwing out a case meant you wouldn't even consider it. Shows what I know, heh.

So I would say they more followed the spirit of the law than its letters, and it was a good call, imo.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
My confusion was from rob's quoted bit that the SC "threw out the case." But in fact they overturned it. I thought throwing out a case meant you wouldn't even consider it. Shows what I know, heh.
I think you're misreading what it says. If you mean this bit:
In the Supreme Court Tuesday, Justice Stephen Breyer summarized why the case was thrown out: The lower courts ruled that since Heffernan was not in fact campaigning for the mayor's opponent, he was not exercising any free speech right. Therefore, he had not been deprived of any constitutional right, and could not sue.
...that's about Breyer summarizing why the lower courts tossed the case. The Supreme Court did not throw it out, it ruled for the plaintive.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
What evidence? All you need is a dictionary.
You're free to post one-liners because you think you're making a good/fair point. I don't think you are. But maybe I'm misreading you. So I'm asking for more info. You don't want to provide anything more? Don't.

But really, I think you--like others--have a fairly warped view of what this case is all about. As I tried to explain upthread, this case isn't addressing a problem that had no other avenue of redress. What makes it "weird" and "unusual" is that the plaintive brought a Federal suit (in 2006, btw) against the city of Paterson for violating his First Amendment Rights when he was demoted for appearing to support the political opponent of the then-mayor of the city. No one is really disagreeing with the idea that what happened to him was wrong. Everyone--from the 3rd Circuit to the SCOTUS as a whole--allows that he was treated unfairly. And in that regard, he--as a police officer--had recourse through his union and possible through other state laws (I don't know specifics here). But he chose to make it a First Amendment case, even though he has said from the beginning that he actually wasn't engaged in an activity that might be covered by the protections of the First. That's unusual. It really is.

That said, there's an argument that he has a point, the one made by the SCOTUS and accepted--apparently--by everyone in this thread. There's also an argument that he doesn't, the one made by a Federal judge, then basically repeated by the 3rd Circuit (a panel of three judges), then again by Thomas in his dissent.

But note that this latter argument, if it stood, doesn't mean he would have no case against the city for the way he was treated. It simply means that the case could not be a First Amendment one. Again, if he was demoted for dating the mayor's ex-girlfriend, he would also have no First Amendment case and if he tried to bring one anyway, it would have never gotten to the Supreme Court. But he would still have a case against the city via other avenues, because he was still treated unfairly.
 
Last edited:

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
Well, why rule for someone if they're just going to be sad about it, anyway?

Thank Dog. I thought someone had changed all the legal terminology behind my back.

And thanks for the clarification, rob. A good example of why reading the whole article is a good idea.
 

StuToYou

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
635
Reaction score
31
Yes, fluid societal changes and the messy nature of life, tends to 'make an ass' of the law - especially if a judge does not use judgement. Any good law lecturer will tell you making a judgment requires a wide range of skills, usually described as 'wisdom'.

Some judges run from wisdom because it's messy, unclear and involves a level of faith and risk.

They hide behind the letter of the law, reassuring themselves that they've done their duty - because it's all there, in black and white.

I suppose another definition of conservatism, might be 'one who views issues as either black or white'.

care to provide cites for any of this?

Oops, I should have made myself clearer - I'm speaking in general terms, not this specific case.

I'm talking about a mentality or mindset. Also I'm using conservatism with a small 'c', a general mindset or approach to ideas.

Hope that clears that up.