Hedgepeth v. Britton, et al.

Can government employees have their speech restricted even when they’re not at work? On March 11, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Hedgepeth v. Britton. The case asked whether, and in what circumstances, public employers may discipline employees based on their expression of controversial views while off duty.

In its brief, the Liberty Justice Center argued that public employees do not give up their First Amendment rights simply because they work for the government. The Supreme Court held in Garcetti v. Ceballos that speech made pursuant to a government employee’s official duties may be subject to regulation because in that limited circumstance the employee was speaking on behalf of the government. LJC urged the Court not to expand that rule beyond its narrow scope.

LJC’s brief warned that an expansion of Garcetti’s exception would allow the government to treat nearly all speech by public employees as official government speech. This would include words or expressions made outside the workplace, on private social media accounts, or on matters unrelated to their duties. Such a ruling would threaten the free speech of millions of Americans who work in public education, public health, state agencies, and other government roles.

The brief also argued that expanding Garcetti in this way would be untenable if applied consistently. Almost everyone understands that top government officials, such as presidents and members of Congress, sometimes make statements reflecting their own personal views rather than those of the government. If those leaders are permitted to speak in a personal capacity rather than an official one, then all government employees must be afforded that same right.

Finally, the Liberty Justice Center explained that the Constitution does not permit a “heckler’s veto,” in which hostile public reaction determines whether peaceful speech remains protected. Allowing the regulation of government employees’ off-duty speech would empower such a veto to the point of effectively barring them from expressing controversial or unpopular views. It would enable public outcry to dictate which private views are permissible, silencing government workers whenever their personal views provoke a negative reaction.

“Cancel culture is, at best, only in remission,” said James McQuaid, Managing Staff Attorney at the Liberty Justice Center. “It is vital that the Court protect the free speech rights of everyone, no matter their job, and no matter how disfavored their speech. We look forward to another vehicle to bring this vital issue to the Court’s attention.”

On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s request for certiorari. The Court’s denial left unresolved a constitutional question of increasing importance: whether government workers are free to speak when they clock out.

The Liberty Justice Center has filed numerous cases, including Thorne v. Shelby County Board of Education, Foley v. MassHealth, and Cubin v. Gordon, arguing that the First Amendment protects the free speech of all citizens, including public employees and government officials. A 24/7 restriction on government employees’ speech defies the purpose of this constitutional protection. LJC will continue to defend Americans’ fundamental right to speak freely.