Richard Ceballos worked as a deputy district attorney for the city of Los Angeles. Ceballos wrote a memo in which he criticized the accuracy of an affidavit in a case that he had been assigned to handle.

In the memo, he expressed doubt about the truthfulness of another employee in the department. Ceballos also testified in court about his doubts in relation to the affidavit. Afterward, Ceballos was victimized by reassignments, transfers, and the loss of a promotion.

He argued that the actions of his superiors violated his right to speak freely about this problem in his department. The district attorney’s office argued that a public employee’s right to free speech could be limited by a state agency when that speech was made in the exercise of his or her official duties. Ceballos argued that his free speech rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, trumped any state action. The district attorney argued that the power to control the right of free speech in relation to public employees had devolved to the states. Is the district attorney correct? Explain. Garcetti, et al. v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (U.S. Supreme Court).