Compensation for unapproved speeches OK'd: EPA employees sued agency over right to collect expenses

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Sanjour v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that regulations allowing EPA employees to be reimbursed for travel expenses only when the employee was approved by the EPA to make such engagements was unconstitutional. The Court found that concerns about the appearance of impropriety were outweighed by the free speech interests of the employees and the public. The court found that the regulations were not sufficiently narrowly tailored and noted that agencies such as the EPA would be allowed too much authorization discretion.

United States. Environmental Protection Agency, Honoraria

---

City employee's firing for comments to media upheld

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in Foster v. Southfield that the Southfield Fire Department did not violate the First Amendment or whistleblower statutes by firing an employee for speaking with newspaper and TV reporters. Foster was in charge of the department's program for recruiting minority and women employees. He stated to the media that the program was a sham and that racism was permitted by the department. The Court found that public employers' interests could outweigh the free speech rights of employees.

Employee dismissals, Employment terminations, Employment at will

---

Generic advertising is not compelled speech

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court ruled that the 1937 Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act's requirement that growers fund generic advertising was constitutional in that it advanced the pricing and industry standards goals of the Agriculture Dept. Wileman Brothers & Elliot Inc. had contested the Act on the grounds that it forced growers to subsidize speech. The Court found that there was no objectionable content and therefore the advertising did not force symbolic or actual speech.

Advertising, Washington, D.C., United States. Department of Agriculture, Wileman Bros. and Elliot Inc.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Confusion about names may show actual malice, state high court says. Omitting facts not malice unless intent was to deceive, court says
• Abstracts: Damages for broken promise upheld. State's 'due process' right doesn't trump shield law. Naming source not waiver of privilege
• Abstracts: International Investigations: global conference returns to Denmark
• Abstracts: International Investigations: global conference returns to Denmark . part 2 GAO report: Stripping information from disclosure reports threatens investigations of judicial misconduct
• Abstracts: Legislative update: a summary of bills introduced in the 104th Congress of interest to the news media. Summary of Ginsburg's media opinions

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.