Connection lost
Server error
GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a public employee’s speech made pursuant to official job duties is not protected by the First Amendment, even if it addresses a matter of public concern.
Legal Significance: This case established that First Amendment protection for public employee speech does not extend to statements made in the course of performing official duties, distinguishing such speech from speech as a private citizen.
GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, was contacted by a defense attorney about alleged inaccuracies in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. After investigating, Ceballos concluded the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations and prepared a disposition memorandum recommending dismissal of the case, submitting it to his supervisors. This memo was written pursuant to his duties as a prosecutor. Following a contentious meeting about his findings, Ceballos claimed he suffered retaliatory employment actions, including reassignment and denial of a promotion. He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his First Amendment rights were violated. The District Court granted summary judgment to the petitioners (Ceballos’s supervisors), finding his speech was not protected because it was made pursuant to his employment duties. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, applying the Pickering balancing test and finding Ceballos’s memo addressed a matter of public concern and was protected.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the First Amendment protect a public employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s official duties?
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that because Ceballos’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum d
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the First Amendment protect a public employee from discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s official duties?
Conclusion
This case significantly narrows First Amendment protections for public employees by establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vo
Legal Analysis
The Court distinguished this case from precedents like *Pickering* and *Givhan*, where Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Speech made by a public employee pursuant to their official