Legal Environment of Admin
Minimum Procedure: Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
Issue - Does receiving a notice and opportunity to comment in writing a valid ground to cut a person’s legal benefits without going through a full evidentiary hearing? This is the central issue pertaining to the interpretation of due process in the Fifth Amendment.
Decision - The Supreme Court ruled the due process in the Fifth Amendment does not require evidentiary hearing given that the right to receive notice and opportunity to comment in writing was provided to the plaintiff.
Reasoning - The court argues that the determination of the required due process should act in a balanced manner that will uphold the interest of both the administrative burden and that of the affected. Determining the reasonable amount of exercised due process, there should be a clear assessment of agency’s actions and interest, the inherited risk of error the exists in the procedure, and the interest of maintaining procedures without insinuating fiscal and administrative. In this case, the court’s opinion stipulating that the prevailing administrative procedure is enough and sufficient to guarantee the plaintiff of lawful due process.
Analysis - Public opinions and on a personal note, the decision of the SC reflects a reasonable judgment on assessing the amount of due process given to the plaintiff given that there were a notice and an opportunity to comment in writing provided. Moreover, pre-termination hearing or an oral hearing for that matter is not mostly required.
Republication Restraint: New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
Issue - The encompassing issues in this case answers the question of how absolute is the right to freedom of speech and its place in democracy. In the case where the Department of Defense sued the New York Times for an injunction under the provisions of Espionage Act §793 on the grounds of publishing classified documents related to the Vietnam War or collectively known as The Pentagon Papers.
Decision - The Department of Defense claims that the publication of classified documents constitutes an imminent threat to national security. However, the Trial Courts refused to grant the plaintiff an injunction concluding a decision in favor of the New York Times. The same decision was delivered by the Appellate Court in Washington DC, but that decision was reversed by the New York Appellate Court granting an injunction in favor of the Department of Defense. Reasoning - However, the Supreme Court after an appeal by the New York Times found that injunctions tend to a prior restraint and, therefore, violates the right to speech protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, any issues arising from the published speech are attributed to penalties for violations of slander and or libel.
Analysis - The core principle applied in this case is the determination of irreparable and grave danger for publishing the documents that will justify the need for prior restraint, which the Department of Defense has failed to establish.
Protected Speech in Public Employment: Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
Issue - The case constitutes a determination of whether the right to free speech is exercisable and protected by the First Amendment given that the employee is acting under the capacity of public servant and not as a plain citizen. Ceballos took notice of the errors in the search warrant released by the District Attorney’s Office citing the concern in a memo sent to Garcetti, stipulating possible violation of the Fourth Amendment. Ceballos went to testify for the defense regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained through the search warrant. This action of Ceballos led to an alleged retaliation from Garcetti in a form of denied promotion and re-assignment. In the court case, Ceballos argued that such actions from Garcetti is an infringement of the right to free speech as stated in the First Amendment.
Decision - The Trial Court found in favor of Garcetti because the memo is part of the functions specified in the job duties as a public, hence the First Amendment does not apply to the memo as a form of free speech. Despite the reversal made by the Appellate Court favoring Ceballos arguing that the plaintiff is a citizen speaking about the matters of public concern, the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Trial Court.
Reasoning - The opinion stated in the memo by Ceballos to Garcetti is not reflective of the sentiments of an ordinary citizen and, therefore, is not protected by the First Amendment. Although there is an apparent error perceived in the search warrant issued by the District Attorney’s Office, it is the job of Ceballos to take notice.
Analysis - Stating that the act of speaking through the memo coincides with the job functions of a public servant working in one of the government agencies and does not apply the conditions of the First Amendment regarding the right to free speech.
Public Religious Display: Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Issue - Issues often arises when politics and religion comes in close proximity with one another. It is the context of the case that questions whether putting up a religious image in close proximity to a government establishment insinuates religious endorsement. After Texas erected a monument of the Ten Commandments within the grounds of State Capitol of Austin, Van Orden filed an injunction claiming that the display infringes the Establishment provisions of the First Amendment.
Decision - The Trial Court found that there is no reasonable evidence suggesting that the government is endorsing religion. The same decision was concluded in the Appellate and Supreme Court.
Reasoning – The Supreme Court argued that having a religious display or any form of message in visual context consistent with a religion doctrine within the government grounds does not imply endorsement.
Analysis - In fact, ordering a removal of the monument would only convey a strike against religion, which encompasses greater consequences than just leaving the monument as it is. The case is an example of misinterpretation of the law (Establishment Clause), wherein secular message is being regarded as an act of religious affiliation.
Provocative Expression: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Issue - There is an apparent question whether the State’s interest of protecting and preserving national symbols supersedes the right of citizen to freedom of expression. Johnson was sentenced to one-year imprisonment after burning a flag during a protest that sparked an outrage among the onlookers and the State of Texas by the Trial Court.
Decision - Despite an appeal by Johnson, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to convict Johnson and similarly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision citing that the First Amendment covers certain conducts of communicating and that the law does not guarantee protection to irrational form of speech.
Reasoning - The case focuses on establishing an argument pertaining to the infringement of the right to speech clause of the First Amendment wherein a citizen under the law may express his opinions publicly in any way he wanted. Johnson on the other hand, argues that burning the flag is his own way of expressing opinion.
Analysis - However, the SC clarifies that the First Amendment covers the essential furtherance of the right to free speech, but only within the confines of the prescribed behavior and manner in which flag burning does not belong. Furthermore, the SC also upheld the decision that provides power to the State to punish speech that insinuates lawlessness.
References
Garcetti v. Ceballos. 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
Makdisi, M., & Makdisi, J. (2009). How to Write a Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/how-to-brief-a-case.page
Matthews v. Eldridge. 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
New York Times v. United States. 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
Texas v. Johnson. 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
Van Orden v. Perry. 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
