| Lane v. Franks | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 29, 2014 Decided June 19, 2014 | |
| Full case name | Edward Lane, Petitioner v. Steve Franks |
| Docket no. | 13-483 |
| Citations | 573 U.S. 228 (more) 134 S. Ct. 2369; 189 L. Ed. 2d 312 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Lane v. Cent. Ala. Cmty. Coll., 523 F. App'x 709 (11th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 571 U.S. 1161 (2014). |
| Holding | |
| Government employee speech that is made during trial is protected citizen speech, and the employee cannot be fired for comments made in that setting | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Scalia and Alito |
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case.[1] The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony” (Page 6, section I).[1] The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2014. The case was decided on June 19, 2014.[2]
The Supreme Court sided with Lane that he was not responsible for something he said during a federal trial. However, the court could not award damages, because Frank's qualified immunity protected him from being sued in his personal capacity. The case is an important vote of confidence from the Supreme Court about governmental employees not being held responsible for speech that is made as a public citizen on a matter of public concern. It is in line with the Pickering v. Board of Education ruling of 1968 (Opinion para. 1).[3]
- ^ a b Goldstein, Thomas (October 18, 2012). "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). amazonnews.com. Retrieved March 28, 2017.
- ^ "Lane v. Franks". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
- ^ Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014).