Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heffernan v. City of Paterson
Heffernan v. City of Paterson
[edit]- This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add
{{collapse top|Previous nomination}}to the top of the discussion and{{collapse bottom}}at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.
The result was: not scheduled by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer disciplines one because of believing that the employee was engaging in protected speech, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right. The case was brought after Jeffrey Heffernan, a detective with the Paterson, New Jersey, police force, picked up a lawn sign for the candidate challenging the city's incumbent mayor in the 2005 election as a favor for his mother. For his apparent public support of the other candidate, Heffernan was demoted to beat patrol work as a uniformed officer. Heffernan brought suit alleging that his demotion violated his First Amendment rights. The case took a decade to reach the Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Breyer (pictured) stated that the Court's precedent in this area holds it is unconstitutional for a government agency to discipline an employee for engaging in partisan political activity, as long as that activity is not disruptive to the agency's operations. (Full article...)
- Most recent similar article(s): 21 August last law case
- Main editors: Wugapodes
- Promoted: August 2016
- Reasons for nomination: US justice seems like a good topic these days, - the case was heard on 19 January which will still be the date in the US when 20 Jan starts in UK.
- Support as nominator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. This is a very nice article and I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)