United States v. Nat'l Treasury Emples. Union - 513 U.S. 454, 115 S. Ct. 1003 (1995)

Rule:

Congress may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees that would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to the public at large. When a court is required to determine the validity of such a restraint, it must arrive at a balance between the interests of the employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. In such cases, which usually have involved disciplinary actions taken in response to a government employee's speech, the court has applied a balancing test only when the employee spoke as a citizen upon matters of public concern rather than as an employee upon matters only of personal interest. 

Facts:

After § 501(b) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was amended to prohibit a Member of Congress, federal officer, or other Government employee from accepting an honorarium for making an appearance or speech or writing an article, respondents -- including individual members of, and a union representing, a class composed of all Executive Branch employees below grade GS-16 who, but for § 501(b), would receive honoraria -- filed a suit challenging the statute as an unconstitutional abridgment of their freedom of speech. The speeches and articles for which respondents had received honoraria in the past concerned matters such as religion, history, dance, and the environment; with few exceptions, neither their subjects nor the persons or groups paying for them had any connection with respondents' official duties. In granting respondents' motion for summary judgment, the District Court held § 501(b) unconstitutional insofar as it applies to Executive Branch employees and enjoined the Government from enforcing it against any such employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing, inter alia, that the Government's failure as to many respondents to identify some sort of nexus between the employee's job and either the expression's subject matter or the payor's character undercut its proffered concern about actual or apparent improprieties in the receipt of honoraria.

Issue:

Was Section 501(b) violative of the First Amendment?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the injunction against enforcement of the statute as to respondents, but refused to extend it to parties not before the court. The court held that the speculative benefits that the honoraria ban may have provided the government were not sufficient to justify the burden it imposed on respondents' freedom to engage in expressive activities. It concluded that 5 U.S.C.S. § 501(b) violated U.S. Const. amend. I. It further concluded that a wide-scale injunction was over-inclusive.