Ceballos was evntually reassigned as a trial attorney and denied a promotion, which he suggested were retalliation for his writing the memo (a violation of his First Amendment rights). This suggest that since employees have obligations to make complaints on their jobs by using internal grievance procedures that are within their job description, when they do level complaints they have no First Amendment protections regarding what they may or may not say.
In essence thay are saying that it is the duty of the citizenry of America, especially thoes that work with the federal government, to support any unethical conduct by federal top-dog beuracratis against both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I find this strange given that it is the civil duty of federal employees to speak out against waste, fraud and any behavior that can be considered as criminal as American citizens first.
So employees will not have any incentive to use the protocols of their work place for grievances (where there is no 1st admenednt protrection) but will more likely speak out in public if they want First Amendment protections. This is rather doltish and witless seeing that if they speak either privately or publicly, they can be fired for what is essentially personal private speech. Even if they just speak publicly, they loose any chance of keeping their jobs because they did not use the employer's circumscribed guidance for complaint.
What does this mean? It means that the Court's decision basically makes it hard for folks to tell or whistle blowon any wrong doings. The truth is that the brave people who do stand up as honest American and tell, are still subject to retaliation by their supervisors . This is even if the allegations and complaints are true and point to criminal behavior. Maybe this would not have happened if Justice O'Connor had not left the bench January 31, before the opinion was completed. Originally the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Ceballos case was "inherently a matter of public concern" protected by the Constitution. Alito was the deciding vote that broke the 4-4 tie. The present administration supported Garcetti citing the U.S. government is "the nation's largest public employer."
The court has in essence done what congress, via the constitution is no able to...." make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this decision they say that First Amendment rights do not apply to government employees who speak within the scope of their jobs. I just find it hard to belive if I found my boss selling plans to the Taliban, and I told on him, I could be fired and charged with a crime. Personally, government workers speaking out on the job have the same kind protection as any one else speaking out in public as citizens. What remains to be seen is what kind of civil servants will we have , or will it leave us with a corpus of cowards - afriad to speak out about criminal acts by their supeiors for fear of losing their jobs, or crooks - selling plans to the enemy, padding their pockets, taking bribes and disrespecting the public good.