Scribd
Upload
93 views3 pages

Court Case Artifact 1

Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

Uploaded by

api-458486566
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views3 pages

Court Case Artifact 1

Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher, was fired after writing a letter to the newspaper criticizing the school board's allocation of funds between educational and athletic programs. Pickering sued, arguing his termination violated his free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Pickering's speech addressed a matter of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment. As a public employee, Pickering could not be fired for speaking on issues of public interest unless his statements were knowingly or recklessly false. The Court found Pickering's statements were substantially true or made in good faith, so his termination was unconstitutional.

Uploaded by

api-458486566
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Running Head: Court Case Artifact 1 1

Pickering v. Board of Education Brief Court Case: Artifact 1

Jasmine Vazquez

College of Southern Nevada


Court Case Artifact 1 2

Citation

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S 563 (U.S 1968)

Facts

The reason for the lawsuit was Freedom of Speech and Wrongful Termination. The

plaintiff, Marvin L. Pickering, a high school teacher of Illinois, wrote a letter to a newspaper

stating that the Board of Education, defendant, was allocating money between the educational

and athletic programs, and he also stated that the superintendent of schools did not allow teachers

to oppose or criticize the Board of Education. The defendant, the Board of Education, fired

Pickering for writing and publishing the letter. The Board argued that many statements made in

the letter were false and that the letter damaged the reputation of the school and community. The

lower courts decided that the letter was not protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

Therefore, Pickering appealed to the Supreme Court that his freedom of speech was violated and

wants is to be reversed.

Issues

Is it constitutional to dismiss an employee for being public, about an issue they disagree

on or criticizing their work place, about a general public issue? Are teachers constitutionally

obligated to relinquish their rights to the First Amendment, to comment on matter of public

interest on the count that they work at a school?

Decision

No, it is not constitutional to dismiss an employee for being public about issues they

disagree on. No, teachers are not constitutionally obligated to relinquish their rights to the First

Amendment, just because they work at a school does not mean that they do not get to comment

on public interest.
Court Case Artifact 1 3

The Supreme Court found that the statements that the Board of Education charged that it

was false were actually true. Out of the eight statements Pickering made about the Board of

education four were true and the other four were incorrect in a certain degree. The court decided

that four incorrect statements were “good-faith” error and they did not have any evidence to

show otherwise.

Reason

If false statements are proven that were created with intent or disregarded the truth the

State can authorize the recovery of damages. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254

(1964); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968). Compare Linn v. United Plant Guard

Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966). Statements made by public officials on public concern must be

given First Amendment protection. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964); Wood v. Georgia,

370 U.S. 375 (1962). Teachers cannot be dismissed for exercising their right to speak of an issue

of public importance.

You might also like