Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Symone Sanders, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch division
w. (202) 454-5108
ssanders@citizen.org

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

April 2, 2009

Federal Appeals Court’s Decision Reinstating Whistleblower’s Complaint Is an Important First Amendment Victory

Statement of Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Senior Attorney, Public Citizen*

Today’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit correctly recognizes that public employees, such as Baltimore police officer Michael Andrew, who go beyond their required job responsibilities in reporting government wrongdoing both internally and to the press, speak "as citizens" protected by the First Amendment.

By acknowledging the paramount value of whistleblower speech, the court sends a message that government employees do not give up their free speech rights when they go to work each morning.

Andrew, a veteran Baltimore Police Department commander, told the police commissioner in 2003 about his concerns over how the police had handled an incident that resulted in the shooting death of an elderly man. Receiving no response, Andrew contacted The Baltimore Sun, which published an article about the shooting. Following the article’s publication, the Baltimore Police Department removed Andrew from his command position.

The federal district court in Maryland dismissed Andrew’s First Amendment claim, and Andrew appealed to the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va. Public Citizen, along with four other public interest groups, submitted an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit supporting Andrew.

In vacating the district court’s order dismissing Andrew’s case, the 4th Circuit in Andrew v. Clark ruled that Andrew had alleged facts in his complaint that could entitle him to relief on his First Amendment claims and, accordingly, that his case should be allowed to proceed. In particular, the court found that the district court had erred in concluding - contrary to the facts alleged in Andrew’s complaint - that Andrew had written his memorandum and spoken to the newspaper reporter pursuant to his duties as a police commander. The 4th Circuit agreed with Andrew and Public Citizen that the district court had misunderstood a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, a whistleblower case argued by Public Citizen in 2006 on behalf of a Los Angeles County prosecutor.

As Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson explained in his concurring opinion, the matter upon which Andrew spoke involved "a question of real public importance, namely whether a police shooting of a citizen was justified and whether the investigation of that shooting was less than forthcoming. To throw out this citizen who took his concerns to the press on a motion to dismiss would have profound adverse effects on accountability in government." We could not agree more.

Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, a senior attorney at Public Citizen, wrote the amicus brief and participated in the oral argument before the 4th Circuit in January.

 

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.