Public Employees Who Testify

24 Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal 71 (2020)

19 Pages Posted: 2 Mar 2021

See all articles by Scott R. Bauries

Scott R. Bauries

University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law

Date Written: November 20, 2020


The Article advances the claim that testimony under oath in the course of a judicial proceeding should not claim its protection solely through the ordinary expressive interests associated with the First Amendment, but instead should be seen primarily as furthering the interests of parties, the adjudicator, and the public in a fair proceeding, interests that sound more in the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. At a minimum, the overwhelming 5th and 14th Amendment interests intertwined with testimonial speech under oath should require a limiting construction on Garcetti v. Ceballos’s exclusion of speech made pursuant to ordinary official duties from First Amendment protection. In addition, such speech should always be considered a matter of public concern regardless of the issues in dispute in the underlying proceeding.

Keywords: First Amendment, Garcetti, Ceballos, public employee speech, testimony, Lane, Franks

Suggested Citation

Bauries, Scott R., Public Employees Who Testify (November 20, 2020). 24 Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal 71 (2020), Available at SSRN:

Scott R. Bauries (Contact Author)

University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law ( email )

620 S. Limestone Street
Lexington, KY 40506-0048
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics