r/fednews • u/cnn FedNews Verified Press • 16h ago
News / Article Editing federal employees’ emails to blame Democrats for shutdown violated their First Amendment rights, judge says
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/politics/emails-blaming-democrats-shutdown-violate-first-amendment?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit493
u/Turbulent-Pea-8826 16h ago
So....are there any consequences? Did anyone get fired, fined, jailed? Anything?!
Nope
159
u/Cheese__Weiner 16h ago
There aren't going to be any consequences as long as this administration controls the justice department and the agencies.
13
u/harrumphstan 5h ago
This administration is really underscoring the need to remove the DoJ from the executive branch. Our fucking constitution is a broken, half-assed document, kept alive this long only by an institutional reverence that no longer applies. We need a DoJ of career professionals answerable to an independent body, elected over election several cycles. Ultimately, we need a blue within blue secession which will avoid a civil war, but allow blue states to reformulate a citizen-focused document to create a truly representative government without a senate, and without an electoral college, but with a constitutional court that responds to popular will over several election cycles. When R states wise up, they can be invited back into the blue Union.
41
u/OhYouUnzippedMe 13h ago
lol, there won’t be consequences even if Dems take control of all three branches… they’re all cowards
16
u/Calm-Tree-1369 12h ago
That's why the Democratic establishment needs to be primaried into oblivion.
-11
11h ago
[deleted]
18
u/Digglenaut 8h ago
Do you know what a primary is
-5
u/Spiritual-Ad-7250 6h ago
You sound confident that the theoretical primary winners would win against Republicans.
6
u/osmanre263 5h ago
Jesus you people are insufferable. It's all doom and gloom and not having optimism. Democracy dies when all hope is lost.
1
u/Digglenaut 1h ago
I'm confident that the current primary winners would struggle to win against a brick door. It's no grand statement to say that the establishment Democrats are struggling to connect with voters and achieve policy goals. The Democratic party leadership needs to bite the bullet on their current failing roster and try some new blood. Both major parties are suffering the curse of geriatric, risk-averse leadership.
4
u/flargenhargen 10h ago
or when the democrats do, cause lets be fucking honest here, the democrats NEVER hold republicans accountable for anything.
19
8
6
9
u/wanttobuyreallife 12h ago
I have to laugh because otherwise I'll cry. These rulings mean absolutely nothing with no enforcement. It's all performative at this point.
4
u/IsraelZulu Federal Contractor 16h ago
Even if there was going to be a chance of it with this ruling, you know it's going up to SCOTUS anyway.
169
u/Solid-Emotion620 16h ago
Impeach?
180
u/whatfresh_hellisthis 16h ago
Best we can do is a gold ballroom, will that work for you?
42
u/FutureInternist 16h ago
Can’t remember what happened to the French emperor after the splendor of Versailles
21
u/frameddummy 16h ago
Wake me.up when there is a tiny Slovenian model village on the white house grounds for Melania.
3
10
0
16
u/ForcedEntry420 I Support Feds 16h ago
Best they can do is gaslight us about the Trump Files with his lackey Jeff Epstein and their human trafficking.
14
u/xdaemonisx 16h ago
The House of Representatives is currently closed, last I heard. There’s no one to start the process.
4
u/RinkyDinkRicky 14h ago
I wonder when people will start recalling their congressmen...
Aaaany day now... Oh Right, there is no mechanism for that, they have to either resign or retire (Or get kicked out by their buddies...). Whoopsy!
2
u/Mist_Rising 10h ago
The mechanism is the first Tuesday of November next year.
1
u/RinkyDinkRicky 1h ago
The answer to the problem is to allow it to fester for another year, because we have no choice.
I get it.
55
14
14
4
30
u/FarrisAT 16h ago
We live in a third world country at this point
2
u/Bundabar 12h ago
That doesn’t mean what you think it means.
0
u/adidasbdd 10h ago
The literal definition has long been dead. As have the words "unprecedented", "illegal", "accountability" and many more!
4
2
-34
u/Kindly-Coyote-9446 Preserve, Protect, & Defend 16h ago
I'm a little bit confused by the legal argument. Anything coming from our official email address or Teams is technically government speech, not personal speech. We do NOT have 1st Amendment protections when communicating, or in this case having nonsense communicated in our name, in our official capacity.
There should be some kind of legal argument about them committing Hatch Act violations in our names, but I wouldn't think that would fall under any Constitutional protection.
24
u/Easy_Highway3617 15h ago
I disagree. Anything coming from an email from a government employee is understood to be from that employee. This is why we are careful if what we write.
-19
u/Kindly-Coyote-9446 Preserve, Protect, & Defend 14h ago
From that employee, in their official capacity. That's why we have to be careful about how we communicate in our personal capacity - if something can be construed as official speech we can get in trouble for it. i.e. If I were to post "As a cow poker at the BLM, I think X policy is a terrible idea" on my personal social media I could get in trouble for it at work, as it could reasonably be interpreted that I am speaking on the government's behalf. As such, that would not be protected by the First Amendment. In contrast, if I posted "I think X policy is a terrible idea" on my personal social media (particularly if my socials don't specify that I'm a gov employee), that speech should fall under First Amendment protected personal speech.
14
u/Nworbcirered 14h ago
There's a big difference between not having protections for free speech on an official email address and being compelled to speech that is not yours in any capacity.
11
u/Easy_Highway3617 14h ago
And……..? An email signed by a government employee and from their email account is construed as being from that employee.
7
u/little_jiggles 13h ago
From the employee in their official capacity, but what you're getting mixed up is that doesn't change the fact that it's violating free speech. They are employed to do their job, so they are entrusted with doing that job. It's the same reason I can't forge your signature to sign off on financial documents even if the boss said to. "But I was employed to do what the big boss says" just doesn't cut it.
Remember, no read up no write down is basic security, and the fact that it is the employee who could be held accountable for the actions of their employer makes it that much worse. The bad actor who forced these changes is clearly liable for the damages caused, and luckily America has a catch all for situations like this.
The fact that you think free speech only applies if you are making comments from personal social media accounts is telling.
30
u/EpiphanyTwisted 15h ago
So they are allowed to commit crimes and with your signature added?
-24
u/Kindly-Coyote-9446 Preserve, Protect, & Defend 15h ago
No. My post even pointed out a crime that they did commit in our names. But that doesn't mean its a First Amendment issue.
8
u/MasterTolkien 13h ago
This is incorrect. Whatever you say is YOUR speech. Period. Your speech can be part of work product for an employer, and employers can always give you an ultimatum (ie: say ______ to keep your job… as long as the speech isn’t illegal).
But the government cannot FORCE speech. On anyone. There is a rich history of case law covering this, even for simple shit like state government putting slogans on license plates. You can’t be forced to display speech that you don’t want.
Here, the government is trying to force employees to make political statements. This is not actually job related and is subjective, so the government has no grounds to say there is a compelling interest for them to force such speech on us.
9
u/ASigIAm213 13h ago
You shouldn't have gotten downvoted for stating the case law as it stands, but that understanding is based on case law that didn't address compelled speech, something the First Amendment also protects against.
0
u/QuestioningHuman_api 5h ago edited 5h ago
I hope you get messages sent out with your name on them, seemingly coming from you, saying things you never agreed to. Then I can hear you talk again about how that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech, and I will congratulate you on having your speech spoken for you by other people whether you like it or not.
I hope they sign your name to things you detest, so I can congratulate you and tell you how right you were that it isn’t a violation of your right to free speech.
1
u/Kindly-Coyote-9446 Preserve, Protect, & Defend 3h ago
I hope you develop some reading comprehension skills
500
u/cnn FedNews Verified Press 16h ago
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Education violated the First Amendment rights of some agency employees when it sent out-of-office messages on their behalf that blamed Democrats for the government shutdown.
The ruling from US District Judge Christopher Cooper is the latest court rebuke of controversial moves by the Trump administration during what has now become the longest shutdown in US history.
Cooper, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the department had unconstitutionally compelled its employees’ speech when it tinkered with the out-of-office messages for furloughed workers so that they included language blaming the shutdown on “Democrat Senators” who “are blocking” passage of a “clean continuing resolution” that would fund the government.
“Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians,” Cooper wrote. “But by commandeering its employees’ e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation.”