Pappas v. Giuliani
Encyclopedia
Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
was not violated where a police officer was fired for mailing out racially offensive political materials from his home.
for anonymously mailing from his home racially offensive political materials to political and other groups that had solicited him for donations. Pappas was fired for mailing out the material. The Appeals court held that the Police Department’s action had not infringed on the plaintiff's Pappas’s rights under the First Amendment
.
, with Judge Colleen McMahon
concurring, found the firing of Pappas was permissible under the Pickering test
. The views Pappas expressed, the finding held, might undermine the effectiveness of the department. They further held that, despite his mailing anonymously, the mailing of the material was seeking to publicize his view. They quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
in the case McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, "A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman."
dissented from the majority's decision to award summary judgment to the police department. Although Sotomayor acknowledged that the speech was "patently offensive, hateful
, and insulting," she warned the majority about “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech it does not like."
Sotomayor argued that Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider not only the NYPD's mission and community relations but also that Pappas was neither a policymaker nor a cop on the beat. Moreover, Pappas's speech was anonymous, "occur[ring] away from the office on [his] own time." She expressed sympathy for the NYPD's "concerns about race relations in the community," which she described as "especially poignant," but at the same time emphasized that the NYPD had substantially contributed to the problem by disclosing the results of its investigation into the racist mailings to the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD's race relations concerns "are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee."
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals...
held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
was not violated where a police officer was fired for mailing out racially offensive political materials from his home.
Facts
Thomas Pappas was dismissed by the New York City Police DepartmentNew York City Police Department
The New York City Police Department , established in 1845, is currently the largest municipal police force in the United States, with primary responsibilities in law enforcement and investigation within the five boroughs of New York City...
for anonymously mailing from his home racially offensive political materials to political and other groups that had solicited him for donations. Pappas was fired for mailing out the material. The Appeals court held that the Police Department’s action had not infringed on the plaintiff's Pappas’s rights under the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
.
Majority opinion
Judge Pierre N. LevalPierre N. Leval
Pierre Nelson Leval is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At the time of his appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1993, he was a United States District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York....
, with Judge Colleen McMahon
Colleen McMahon
Colleen McMahon is a United States federal judge.Born in Columbus, Ohio, McMahon received a B.A. from Ohio State University in 1973 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1976. She was in private practice in New York from 1976–1979 and from 1980 to 1995. She was a Speechwriter / special assistant...
concurring, found the firing of Pappas was permissible under the Pickering test
Pickering v. Board of Education
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from...
. The views Pappas expressed, the finding held, might undermine the effectiveness of the department. They further held that, despite his mailing anonymously, the mailing of the material was seeking to publicize his view. They quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932...
in the case McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, "A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman."
Sotomayor dissenting opinion
Sonia SotomayorSonia Sotomayor
Sonia Maria Sotomayor is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving since August 2009. Sotomayor is the Court's 111th justice, its first Hispanic justice, and its third female justice....
dissented from the majority's decision to award summary judgment to the police department. Although Sotomayor acknowledged that the speech was "patently offensive, hateful
Hate speech
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic....
, and insulting," she warned the majority about “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech it does not like."
Sotomayor argued that Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider not only the NYPD's mission and community relations but also that Pappas was neither a policymaker nor a cop on the beat. Moreover, Pappas's speech was anonymous, "occur[ring] away from the office on [his] own time." She expressed sympathy for the NYPD's "concerns about race relations in the community," which she described as "especially poignant," but at the same time emphasized that the NYPD had substantially contributed to the problem by disclosing the results of its investigation into the racist mailings to the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD's race relations concerns "are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee."