## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 3298 M IL WAUK EE D EP UTY S HERI FF ’ S A S S OCI AT I ON a nd M ICHAEL S CHU H, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v.
D AVI D A. C LA R KE, J R ., a nd E I LE EN R I CHA RDS, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06 C900

—Patric ia J . G or enc e, Magis trate Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 21, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e d isp u te in t h is c as e is whato ne ’ s m o th ermighthav e i n mi nd whe n s he i m parts the cl ass i c phras e, “S ti cks a nd st ones m ay bre ak m y b ones , but w or ds w i l l neve r hurt m e. ” Ap p arentl y, M i l w aukee County S heri ffDavi d A . C lar ke, J r. , di d not2 N o. 08

- 3298 tak e thi s chi l dh oo d l ess on t o hear t. In the sum m ero f20 05, Sher i ffCl ar ke po sted on a ro l l

- cal l bul l etin boa rd a quote that at l eas t on e deputy, M i chaelS chuh, consi dered an offensi ve chal l enge to h i s and h i s fel l ow offi cer s’ co urag e. Schuh fi re d back by p u bl i shi ng a tw o- sente nce s tat em en t ch all en ging She riff C larke’s courage. Sheriff Clar ke, apparent l y a f ra i d that words woul d h u r th i m, q u ick ly r e s p on d ed by rea ss ign in g Sc h u hto a n ew ly cre ate d m i ssi on in one ofM i l w aukee ’ s m ostcr i m e- ri dd en nei ghborhoods. Dep uty S chuh sued Sher i ffCl ar ke, cla i m i ng tha t Clar ke re tal i ate d against hi m f orenga gi ng i n prot ecte d speech in vi ol ati on o fthe Fi rs t Am endm ent. S chuh al so cl aim ed tha t a r ec en t ch an g e to the de par tment ’ s Con

fi denti al i ty Pol i cy const i tuted an unlawfulpri orr est ra i nt. W e ar e sy m pathe ti c to Schu h’s pos i ti o n, a nd we co nsi der S heri ffCl ar ke’ s re sp on se aga i nst S chuh to be e xcessive. B ut there are li m its t o th e Fir st A m en d m en t’s prot ecti ons w hen a pu blic em plo yee speak s, and beca use w e fin d th at Sc h u h w as sp ea kin g on a m a t t er of p u re ly pri vate co n cer n, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat sum m ar y j ud gm ent in Sher i ffC lar ke’s f avo r w as appropri ate
.
I. B ACK GR OUN D I n late M ay 2005 , the M il w au kee C ou nt y D ep ut y Sheriff’s Asso ci at i o n (“M DS A”) , whi chr epr es en ts de put i es a nd sergean ts em p loyed by the M il w au kee C ou nt y Sheriff’s Offi ce, l ear ned that Sher i ffCl ar ke w as d i re cti ng o n-duty office rs to es cor t hi m to and fro m the M i l w aukee ai rpor t a nd to co nd u c t p ersonal i zed patr ol s o fhi s ho m e.N o. 08

- 3298 3

An i ni t i al fi ndi ng o ff ac tpr opos ed by S he ri ffCl ar ke an d 1 C a p t a i n Ri c h a r ds s t a t e d a mbi g u o u s l y th a t“ [ a ] s t o r y or t wo app eared i n the Jo u rn a l and a l s o r eferen c e was m ade on Chan ne l 12.” (D ef

. ’ s Pr op. Fi ndi ngs ofFa c t¶ 1 15

. ) The defen dan ts l aterw ithd rew this prop osed finding as inacc u ra te, ci ti ng a se arch o fa l egal database f or Jo u rn a l S en tin el art ic le s du ri ng the r el evant ti m e. Plai nti ff s then dis pu ted that there w ere no st orie s in the Journ al Sen ti n el, b u t they d id no t pr op ose an add it ional finding off act, nor did they p o in t the dist ri ct court t o any such art ic le

. Bel i evi ng the co nd uct t o be an i m properper sonaluse of the County’ s l i m i ted r eso urces

— pa r t i c ul a r l y du r i ng a ti m e when m o ne y was t i g ht

— M DSA p re si dent Roy Felber conve yed the A sso ci ati on’ s co ncer ns to a re port erfro m the M ilw a uk ee Jou rna l Sen tinel

. The r eco rd i s uncl ear whethe r the ne wspa perpub l i sh ed a st o r y abo utthe Sher i ffatthatti m e. 1 A f ew wee k s l at er, S he r if f C lar k e po st ed a quo te o n a roll -callboard at the d ep artm en t, visibl e to m ost She riff’ s Offi ce e m pl o y ee s. S he r i ffCl ar k e ha d po st ed quo ta ti o ns a nd inspi r a t i o na l me s s a g e s i n the p a s t, b utthi s o ne h a d a notab l y c onfro ntati onalto ne: I fyo u ar e a fra i d orhave l ostyo ur co urag e, yo u m ay go h om e, ot h er w ise you w ill ru inth e m or ale ofo ther s. Deutero nom y, Chapter 20, Ver se 8 O n e d ep u ty w h o re ad Sh er iff C lar ke ’s “ in sp ira tio n al” post w as M i chaelS chuh , a n ei ghtee n-y earve ter an o ffi cer w ho was then w or ki ng as a bai l i ff

. S chu h to ok offense to She riff C larke’s m essag e, believi ng the Sh eriff w as p er-4 N o. 08

- 3298

s o n a l l y c h a l l e n g i n gh i s o wn

— and his br othe r and si ste r offi cer s’

— cour age to per f or m thei r du ti es. I n r e s po ns e to the S he r i ff’ s quo t e , S c hu h s ub mi t t e d a tw o- sente nce s tat em ent t o the S t ar, a n M DSA newsle tte r dedi ca te d t o pub l i sh i ngne ws a nd u p dat es wi th i n the Sh eri ff’ s Offi ce. The Sta r re gu lar ly c on ta in ed ed ito ria ls and com m en tar y fro m deputie s, i ncl ud i ng o ccasi onal cr i ti ci sm o fS he r i ffCl ar ke. The M DS A di st r ibut es the St arto app roxim ately 700 cu rrent an d retir ed M D SA m embe r s, a s wel l a s p rivat e bus i ne ss es , s po ns o r s, a nd the M i l w aukee County Boar d ofS up er vi sor s, wh ich contr ol s the S heri ff’ s budget

. Dep uty S chuh’s ar ti cl e m i rr or ed Sher i ffCl ar ke’ s quot e f ro m D euter onom y, with a few addit i ons that M ose s ne v e r u t t e r e d wh i l e o ut s i de o fthe P r o mi s e d L a nd : U ni on M em ber ’ s Res ponse: I fy o u a r e afr ai d oryo u hav e l o styo urc o ur ag e an d need two d eputi es and a se rg eant to esco rtyo u ev ery ti m e y o u fl y i n a nd o uto fthe a i r po r t an d patro l deputies t o dri ve by yourhouse wh en you’ re o ut o ft own yo u shoul d res i gn and go h om e! T h en you w ou ld lift th e m or ale of th is w hole d ep artm en t (a. k.a. office). A c c ord ing to D ep ut y Sch uh , he learned of She riff Clar ke’ s use o fo ffi cer s t o patro l hi s ho m e byvi ew i ng an o r d e r fo r th a ta s s i g n me n to na r o l l

- c a l l b o ar d , a n d n e ws ofthe S h er i ff’ s per sonales cor ts to the a i rpor t a rr i ved th r o ug h the “ g r ape vine . ” S ch uh t es ti fi ed th athe c o nst r ue d the S he r i ff’ s po sta s a ch al l en g e to hi s co ur ag e, a ndN o. 08

- 3298 5 he wro te hi s r es po ns e to “ th row bac ka t hi m whathe th re w atu s.” Sc h u h m er ely int en d ed to m ak e a sa rc as tic re m ar k about th e Sh er i ff’ s co urag e a nd di d not be l i eve tha tCl a r k e wa s i n f a c ta c o wa r d. O n F r i d a y, J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , th e MDS A d i s t r ib u t ed th e e di t i o n o fthe Starcont aining Sch uh ’s arti cle. Sheriff C lar ke , w h o d id n otkn ow D ep u ty Sc h u h u n t i l t h is in c ident, was l ess than ple ase d by the st atem ent. Laterthat eve ni ng, Cl ar ke cal l ed hi s s eco nd

- i n-c om m and, I nspector K evi n Carr, to di scuss an appropr i ate r esponse . Clar ke set tl ed on r eas si gni ng S chuh to a new “Pi l ot Proj ect, ” cr eat ed j ust forS chuh, that re quir ed hi m to pat r o l a po r ti o n o fM i l wauk ee o n f o o t, i n ful l uni f o r m , a nd perf or m var i ous t ask s. One obj ecti ve ofthe Proj ect w as to i m pr o ve r el at i o ns wi ththe c o m m un ity, whi chS ch uh woul d a ch i ev e byi nt er vi ewi ngr es i den ts t o de te r m i ne “w hat pl agu es the ne i ghborhood the m ost ” a nd to “[c ]on vin c e t h em th at w e’r e t h e g o o d gu ys /w e’r e o n th eir sid e a n d ca n ’t s u c c ee d w ith ou t t h eir p ar tic ip at ion .” A nothero fthe sta ted o bj ectiv es o fthe Proj ect w as si m pl e: “ Vi sibi l i ty
. ” Cl ar k e e-m ail ed th e det ai l s o fthe new a ssignm ent t o Carro n Sa turday, J uly23 , st ating tha t “W e’ l l id en tify the census tr act.
. . . A nd o rderhi m to w ea r h is u n iform h at for gr ea te r vis ibilit y.” Any u nc er ta i nty tha t S he r i ffCl ar k e ha rbo r ed ab o ut w here to send D eputy S chuh w as re sol ved the next day, Sunday, J uly24, w h en the Jo urn a l Sen tinel pri nted a m ap o fa c r i m e- r i ddens ec ti o n o fM i lw au kee ’ s no r ths i de. The new spaper chara cter i zed the m ap as the “ dem ogra p h i cs of a h igh killin g a re a,” d es c rib e d t h e o n e-s q u ar e-m ile6 N o. 08

- 3298

ne ighborh ood as “th e C ity’s d ead li est area,” and de m arcate d recen t “hom ici d es in M i lw au kee’s ‘hot sp ot.’ ” Sheriff Clar ke ackno w l edged r eadi ng t h e ar ti cl e; the re ader c a n un do ub t e dl y s e e wh e r e thi s t a l e i s h e a de d. W hen Depu ty Schuh ar ri ved atwork on M onday, J uly25 , he r ecei ved hi s pl um new assi gnm ent. The l oca ti on t o whi chCl ar k e as si g ne d S ch uh mat ch ed pr ec i se l y the b ou n d ar ies of “t h e C ity ’s d e a d lies t a re a.” Sc h u h w as to ld that he m ust e m bar k o n thi s foo t patr olcam pai gn i n fu ll un if orm , w ithou t a pa rtne r, and w ithou t a s q ua d car. And u nl i k e a nyo the r o ffi c e r, h e wa s r e qu i r e d t o ri de a M ilw au ke e C ou n ty T ra n sitbu s t o a n d fr om h is n ew “b ea t.” H e r ecei ved no advance no ti ce of hi s r eas si gnm ent, as re q u ire d by the par ti es’ co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. N ot surpri si ngl y, S chuh vi ew ed the re ass i gnm ent a s pu ni shm ent forhi s s tat em ent a gainst S heri ffCl ar ke. County author i ti es and the l oc al m edi a qui ckl y l ear ned ofthe Sher i ff’ s co nd uct. On Ju l y 2 7, two days after Sch uh ’ s r e a s s i g nme nt, the Mi l wa uk e e Co un t y Bo a r d o f Superv i sors, w hi ch ov er see s the S heri ff’ s budget, i ssued an o p en letterto the Sher i ff

. The Boar d express ed i ts “d isg u st atth e re as sig n m e n t o f D ep u ty M ich ae l Sc h u h,” cri ti ci zed the Sher i ff’ s fi scalir re sponsibi l i ty and “sense l ess a pp r o a c h” t o c o mbat i ngv i o l e nc e , a nd c o nc l ud e d:

“ W e u r g e y o u t o r e c o ns i de r the b l a tantl y s ho r t s i g ht e d, irr es po ns ibl e, a nd po te nt i al l y da ng er o us move o fpl ac i ng a Deputy as a one- m an fo ot patr oli n the str eet s. ” Deputy S ch uh an d th e M DS A fi l ed a fede r al l aws uit on the sa m e day, a nd th e m edi a’ s f o cus the n s hi fte d t o the l i ti g at i o n.N o. 08

- 3298 7 On Jul y 2 9, the Jour nal Sen tinel publi shed an e dit or i al cart o o n de pi ct i ngS he r i ffCl ar k e ( do nni ngthe o bl i g at ory te n- g al l o n c o wbo y ha t) po i nt i n gagun l ab el ed “r et al i at i o n” at a p ict u re of D ep u ty Sc h u h, on l y to h av e itba c kfir e in the Sher i ff’ s f ace, to w hi ch the Sher i ff excl ai m s, “I gu ess Ishow ed him !” Schuh se rv ed on foot p atr olforo vero ne m onth, fro m J ul y 2 5 to S ept embe r 8 , 2 00 5. He was e qui p p ed w i tha ra dio and s ta te d that he was nei therafra i d nor thre ate ned w hi l e p er f or m i ng hi s duti es. S chuh d i d not l o se a ny pa y o r ben efi ts dur i ngthe Pi l o t Pr oj ec t, a nd he w as even tu all y grant ed his requ est for a tran sfer. On J ul y 2 8, 2 00 5, o nl y thr ee da y s afte r r eassigning Dep uty S chuh, Sher i ffCl ar ke i ssued Dir ecti ve N o. 13

- 05, w hi ch f or m ally revi sed the departm ent’ s Confi denti al i ty P olic y. T h e o rig in al C on fid en ti alit y P olic y w as p ro m u lg at ed i n 1 98 4, a nd a r ev i si o n h ad appa r en tly b ee n in the w orks for som e tim e prior to t he cont roversy su rro und i ng D ep uty S chuh. Sher i ff’ s Offi ce e m plo yee s propos ed an upd ate d pol i cy i n 2002 , al though the r evi si on w as n ever i m ple m ented. In J uly20 05, Captai n Eil een Ri ch ar ds, a t S he r i ffCl ar ke’s di r ec ti o n, dr afte d the re vi sed pol i cy, r el yi ng in l ar ge part on the uni m ple m ented 20 02 p ro p os al. T h e n ew p olic y, w h ich rem ain s in effe c t, d iffer ed on ly sli ghtl y fro m the ol d. Ratherthan re quir i ng em plo yee s t o “ke ep departm entalbusi ness confi denti al, ” e m p l oye es n ow m u st “k ee p offic ial a ge n c y b u sin es s c o n fid en tia l.” Em plo yee s a re pro hibi ted fr om i m parting such info rm ati on “ to an yo n e e xcept tho se f orwh om i t i s intended, or8 N o. 08

- 3298

as dir ecte d by the S heri ffo r hi s desi gnee, o r as or dered b y la w .” T h e n ew ru le a lso m an d at es th at n o on e “s h all speak on be hal fo fthe ” Sh er i ff’ s Offi ce unl ess autho ri zed to do so

. A fterS heri ffCl ar ke i ssued the re vi sed Confid enti al i ty P olic y, D ep u ty Sc h u h sp ok e w ith th e m ed ia on m u ltip le occa sio ns r ega rdi ng hi s r eas si gnm ent. H e was neve r disc i plined orthr eat ened w i th di sci pline under th e new Policy. In fact, M D SA pres id e nt Roy Felber w as u na w are of any em p loyee discip line d un d er either ve r si o n o fthe Pol i cy. The pa rties a g r ee d t o di smi ss , wi th o utpr ej udi ce , the federa l l aw sui t that Deputy S chuh and the M DSA fi l ed on J ul y 2 7, 2 0 0 5 , a n d o n O c t o b e r 7, th e p l a i n t i ff s fi l e d t he pr es en t su i t i n Mil waukee Cou nty Ci r cui t Cou r t. S ch uh and the M DSA al leged vi ol ati ons ofW i sco nsi n sta te l aw a nd, pur su an t to 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, tha t ( 1) the de fen d an ts ret alia te d ag ain st S c h u h in v iola tio n of h is F i r stAm en dm en t r i gh ts to fr ee s pee cha nd a ss o ci at i o n; and (2 ) the Dep ar tm ent’ s new C onfi denti al i ty Pol i cy co ns ti tu te d a n i m per m i ss ibl e pr i o r r es tr aint
. The de fen dants r em ove d the ac ti on t o t he U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe Eastern D i str i ct o fW i sco nsi n on Au gust 17, 2006

. T h e parti es fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, and the dist ri ct c ourtr ule d in f avo r ofS heri ffCl ar ke an d Ca p tain R ichard s on all fed e r a l c lai m s. T he cou rt dec l i ne d t o e xe r ci se s uppl ement aljur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the st at e c l a i ms a n d d i s mi s s e d th e a c t i o n . D e p u t y S c h u h a nd th e MDS A n o w a p p e a l, a n d f o r th e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, weN o. 08

- 3298 9 agr ee that sum m ar y j ud gm ent in defe nd ants’ f avo r w as p rop er.

II. A NA LYSIS O u r g u i d i n gp r i n c i p l e s f o r r e v i e win ga g r a n to fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent a re f am i l iar
. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct cou rt’ s dec i si o n deno vo and m ust r eve rs e i fwe fi nd that a r eas onabl e j ury coul d ha ve r en dered a ver dicti n f avo r of t h e M D SA an d D ep u ty Sc h u h

. See A nders on v . Lib er ty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U

. S. 242, 252 ( 1986 )

. The part i es fi l ed cr oss m o ti o ns f o r su m m ar y j udg m en t, a nd we co ns true the evi dence i n f avo r ofthe M DSA and Schuh , t h e par ti es aga i nst whom the m oti on under c onsi derat i on was m ade. Se eSa m ue l s on v. La Port eCm ty. Sch

. Corp. , 52 6 F.3d 104 6, 1051 ( 7th Cir. 2008). The M DSA and Depu ty Schuh r ai se tw o i ssues o n appeal : ( 1) wh etherS heri ffCl ar ke vio lated Schuh’s Fi rs t A m endm ent r i ghts by re ass i gni ng h im t o the new Pil ot Pro gram ; and ( 2) wh etherthe re vi sed Confi denti al i ty Pol i cy const i tuted an i m perm i ssibl e pr i orr est ra i nt.

A. F i rs tAm e ndmentRe t al i at i on The Fi rs t Am endm ent, appli cabl e t o the s ta te s thro ugh the F ourt eenth A m endm ent, pro hibi ts a publ i c em plo yer fro m re tal i ating aga i nst an em plo yee f or engag in g in p ro te c te d sp ee c h

. S e eC a l l a h a n v . F e r m on , 52 6 F

. 3d 1040 , 104 3

- 4 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )

. We a pp l y a thr e e - s t e p a na l y s i s to a F i r s t Am e nd men t r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m u nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C.10 N o. 08

- 3298 § 1 98 3: (1) th e em p loy ee ’s s p ee c h m u st be co n st itu tio n ally prot ecte d; ( 2) the em plo yer ’ s a cti on m ust be m oti vate d bythe c o ns ti tu ti o na l l y pr o te ct ed spe ec h; a nd ( 3) i fthe a c t i o n w a s r e t a l i a t o r y, w e c o n s i d e r w h e th e r th e e mpl o y erha s demons tr at ed th ati t woul d ha ve t ak enthe sa m e ac ti o n i r r es pec ti ve of the e m pl o y ee ’ s spe ec h. Hous ki ns v. Sh e ahan , 549 F.3d 480 , 489-90 (7th C ir. 2008); Kokk inis v. Ivko vich , 185 F.3d 840 , 843 (7th C ir. 1999). This case tur ns o n w hetherDeputy Sc huh’s s peech was const ituti onal l y pr ote cted, f orther e i s no questi on that S he r i ffCl ar k e r et al i at ed ag ains t S ch uh fo r pub l i sh i ng hi s s tat em ent in the St ar . Norc anCl ar k e cl ai m tha t he w ou ld h ave tak e n t h e sam e action irresp ective of Schu h’s sp ee c h ; h e d id n otev en kn ow Sc h u h be for e t h e a rt icle appeared. The r eco rd i s cryst alcl earthatCl ar ke re sponded to S chuh’s re m ar ks by re ass igning hi m to a dang e r o us n e i g hb o r ho o d o n a n e wl y c r e a t e d mi s s i on ofquesti onabl e publ i c uti l i ty. S heri ffCl ar ke hand

- tai l or ed the t askf orS chuh al one, w anted him to be ove rt l y v i sibl e, an d o r der ed hi m t o t ak e th e bus t o hi s ne w “ beat. ” I n o ur vie w, S he r i ffCl ar k e’ s r es po ns e was a c hi l di sha nd po te nti al l y ha r m fulrep ri sa l f o r a t wo- se nt en ce s ta te m en t, a nd we d o notc o ndo ne hi s co nduc t. Appar en tly o ur thoughts ar e co nsi ste nt with thos e o fth e M i l w aukee County Boar d ofS up er vi sor s, the m edi a, and the ge nera l pu bl i c. But Sher i ff C l ar ke’ s co nd uct, as i rr esponsibl e a s i tma y h a v e b e e n, v i o l a t e d D e pu t y Schuh’ s F i r s tAmen dm ent r i ghts onl y i fthe speech was co nsti tuti on allypro tect ed, and i t i s upon thatquesti on that we m ust focus. Th e g ove rnm ent m ay not “co nd i ti on publ i c em plo ym en t o n a ba si s th at i nfr i ng es th e empl o y ee ’ s co ns ti tu ti o n-N o. 08

- 3298 11

Sh er i ffCl ar ke was al s o the defen danti n F u ers t
. 2 A nd a w is e c onces si on itw as. The only connect ions between 3 Sc huh’ s sp eec h a nd hi s e m pl oym en twer e thatSh er i ffCl ar ke (co n tin u ed ...) allypro tect ed i nter esti n fre edom o fexpre ssi on, ” Con nick v. M yers , 461 U

. S. 13 8, 142 (1983 ), bu t a pu bli c em p loyee’s rig h t t o fre e s p ee c h i s n otab so lu te , City of Sa n Diego v. Roe, 5 4 3 U
. S

. 7 7, 8 0 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ [ A ] g o v e r n m e n t a l e mplo yer may i mpo s e c e r t a i n r e s t r a i nt s o n the s pe e c h o fi ts em p loy ee s, re st ra in ts th at w ou ld be u n c on st itu tio n al if ap p li ed to the gen eral pu bli c.”); F u e rs t v . Cl ar ke, 45 4 F. 3d 770, 774 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)

. Ou r go al is “ to ar ri ve at a 2 bal an c e between the i nter est s o fthe [ em plo yee ] , as a citizen, in com m en ting u p on m a t t e rs of p ub li c con cern an d the i nt er es t o fthe S ta te , a s ane m pl o y er, i n pr o m o ting the e ffi ci ency ofthe pu bl i c se rv i ces i t per f or m s thro ugh i ts em plo yee s. ” Pic ke r i ng v. Bd. o f Educ

. of Twp. H igh Sc h. D i s t
. 20 5 , 391 U

. S. 563, 568 (1968 ). T o re c ei v e F irs t A m en d m en t p ro te c tio n, th er efo re , a pu bl i c em plo yee m ust s peak “ as a ci ti zen o n a m att ero f pu bl i c co ncer n. ” Garc e t t iv. Ce b al l os , 547 U
. S. 41 0, 41 7 ( 2006). Ifhe i s no t so s pea k i ng, the e m pl o y ee ha s no c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r F i r s t A me n d me n t r e t a l i a t i o n, a n d we ne ed no t ba l an ce the e m pl o y ee ’ s i nt er es ts a g ains t the g o ve r nm en t’ s i nt er es t i n pr o m o tinge ffec ti ve a nd e ffi ci en t pu bl ic s er vic es. Spiegla v. H ull, 481 F.3d 961 , 965 (7th C ir. 2007 )

. S heri ffCl ar ke dis pu ted be l ow that S chuh w as sp eak i ng “a s a ci ti zen” by w ri ti ng hi s a rt i cl e forthe St ar, b u t h e h as co n c ed ed th is p oin t o n ap p ea l. 312 N o. 08

- 3298

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 w as his s up eri or and that he l earned o f Clarke’ s condu ct thr ough hi s pos i t i on as a deputy. Sc huh dra ft ed h i s s t at em en t whil e off

- duty , he r epo rt ed the c onduc te xt er nal l y, an d no e vi de nc e i nd i c a t e s tha tthe s pe e c h was “ pu r s ua ntt o” o r “ owe [ d] i t s ex ist en ce to ” h is o ffici a l d u tie s. G ar ce tti, 547 U.S

. at 421. Cons equen t ly, the di s t ri c tc our tc or re c t l y f ound thatSc huh was s pea ki ng a s a c i t i ze n. B e c a u s e D e p u t y S c h u h wa s s p e ak i ng a s a c i t i z e n, we turn to the centr al questi on: wh etherhi s s tat em ent was “o n a m att ero fp u bl i c co ncer n. ” To deter m i ne thi s quest i on ofl aw , we m ust co nsi der “ the conte nt, f or m , and c onte xt o f a g ive n st at em en t, a s r ev ea led by th e w h ole rec or d .” C onnick, 461 U .S. at 1 47 -4 8
. A l t h ou gh n o fa c to r is sing ul ar l y di spo si ti ve , we ha ve i ndi ca te d tha t th e co nt en t ofthe speech i s the m osti m p or ta n t o fthe thre e. See Chakl os v. St e ve ns , 560 F.3d 705 , 714 (7th Cir. 2009); Cl i f f v. B d. o f Sch . Co m m ’rs , 42 F. 3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 1994). W he n ex am ining th e “con tex t” of a p ub li c em p loye e ’s sp ee ch, the e m pl o y ee ’ s m o ti ve f o r s pea k i ngi s a r el ev an t c on sid er at ion
. C li

ff , 4 2 F .3 d at41 0; s e eal s o Chakl os , 56 0 F. 3d at 714; M i l ler v. Jo nes , 444 F.3d 929 , 937 (7th C ir. 2006 )

. A fteral l, “[ t] he Fi rs t A m endm ent ‘ w as f ashi oned to a ss ur e unfet te r ed i nte r ch an g e o fi dea s f o r the bri ngi ng ab out ofpol i ti caland so ci alchange s desi re d by the peo ple

. ’ ” C onnick, 46 1 U.S

. at14 5 ( quoti ng Roth v. U nited Sta tes , 354 U
. S. 476, 484 ( 1957 ) )

. A publi c em plo yee , f am ili arwith a n age ncy’ s use o fpubli c r eso urces , m ay be in the bestposi ti on t o ra i se i ssues vi talto effi ci ent, su cce ssful, an d l egal governa nc e. A s the Sup re m e C ou rtN o. 08

- 3298 13 has no ted, “publ i c em plo yee s a re o ften the m em ber s o f th e co m m uni ty who ar e l i k ely to ha ve i nf o r m ed op ini o ns as to th e op erations of thei r p u b lic em p loyers .

. . . W ere they not abl e t o speak on these m at ters, the com m unity woul d b e depr i ve d o fi nf o r m ed op inions o n i m po r ta nt pu blic i ssues . ” Roe, 5 43 U. S

. a t 82
. At i ts c o r e, the n, the Fi rs t Am endm ent s houl d prote ct s peech that inten ds to ra i se such i ssues . Bu t a publi c em p loyee’ s m oti ve f orspeak i ng i s no t necess ar i l y a di sposi ti ve f acto r, and we have c auti oned aga i nst c re ating “an abso l ute l i tm us test because [ m oti ve] does not supp l ant co ntent i n ter m s o fo ver al l i m port ance to the publ i c co ncer n i nquir y. ” C li ff , 4 2 F .3d at41 0; see al s o Chakl os , 560 F. 3d at 714; M iller, 444 F. 3d at 937. Consequent l y, tha ta p ub l i c e mpl o y e e s pe a k s o uti n pa r tf or perso nal r eas ons w i l l notnece ssa ri l y r em ov e the s peech fro m th e s c op e of p u b lic c on c er n . SeePh el an v. C ookCo unty, 46 3 F .3d 77 3 , 7 9 1 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); G usta fso n v . Jones , 29 0 F .3d 89 5, 90 8 (7t h C ir. 20 02 ); Zorz iv. County of Put nam , 30 F. 3d 885, 897 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( “ ‘ [ T]he m er e f act that an em plo yer ’ s s tat em ent i s a n outg ro w th o fhi s per sonal di spu te d oes no t pr ev en t so m e as pec t o fi t f r o m t o uch i ng up on m att er s o fpu bl i c co ncer n . . . . ’ ” ( quoti ng B erg v. H un ter, 854 F.2d 238 , 242 (7th C ir. 1988))). The mot i ve o fa s ta te m en t, r athe r, “ m at te r s t o the ex ten t tha t even sp e e c h o n a sub j ect th at w ou ld oth erw ise be of in te re st to th e p u b lic w ill no t b e p ro te c te d if the e xpr ess i on a dd re sse s o nl y the per sonaleffect up on the e mpl o y e e , o r i fthe onl y poi nt o fthe speech was to furtherso m e purely pri vate inter est
. ” Gus t af s on , 29 014 N o. 08

- 3298 F.3 d at 90 8 (cita tio n an d q u ot a t i o n s om itt ed ); see also But t on v . Ki b b y- Br own , 1 46 F. 3d 526, 52 9- 30 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) (“[ S]p ee c h lac ks th e p u b lic c on c er n ele m en t if it concerns a subj ect ofpubli c i nteres t b ut the express i on ad d re s s e s o n ly th e p er so n al e ffec t u p on th e e m p loy ee .” ( quotati ons om i tte d))

. W e m u st analy ze the e xtent that an em p loy ee ’s s p ee c h w as m ad e fo r p er so n al re as on s in conj uncti on with the extent to w hi ch the content r el ate s t o a m a tt er of p u b lic c on c er n . See M etzg er v. D a R o sa , 36 7 F
. 3 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ ‘ [ W ] he r e c o ns i de r a ti ons of m oti ve and c onte xt i nd i cate that an em plo yee ’ s s peech raised a topic of general societal int erest m erely for personalr eas ons ra therthan a desi re to ai r th e m er i ts of the i ssu e , . . . the s e f a c t o r s mi l i t a t e a g a i ns tthe c o nc l us i on that the e mpl o y e e ’ s s pe e c h i s e nt i t l e d t o F i r s tAmen dm ent pr ote cti on. ’ ” ( quoti ng C a m pb ell v. To w se, 99 F
. 3d 820, 827 (7th C ir. 1996))). W i th the se consi derat i ons i n m i nd , we turn t o Dep uty Schuh’s st ate m ent, wh i ch the dis tr i ct c ourtdeter m i ned to be a p ure ly p erson al r esp ons e to SheriffClarke’s D eu tero no m y quo te
. F i r st, the f o r m o fS ch uh’ s st at ementwei g hs i n f avo r of const i tuti onal prot ecti on; th e St ari s a l abor or gani zati on newsl ett erthati s di str ibuted bey ond Dep ar tm en t e m p l oy ee s a n d d ed ica te d to , inte r alia , pol i ti cal com m entary. T he effect ofthe conte nt and cont ext o f Sch uh ’s statem en t, how ever, i s not as clear. Regar ding the c onte nt o fS chuh’s sta tem ent, the dist ri ct cou rt sim plyst ate d “Depu ty Schuh’s ar ti cl e quest i oned Sh er iff C lar k e ’ s p er so n al u se of d ep ar tm en t re so u rc es .” W e i nt er pr etthi s to meantha t th e c ou r t f o und theN o. 08

- 3298 15

P er h a p s a co u n ty sh er iff’s l a ck o f co u ra g e, in an d o f itse lf, 4 m ay quali fy as a m att er of pu blicconcern, although the M D SA a nd S c hu h ha ve n otr a i s e d thi s a r gu m ent. W e d o no tdo ub t thatthe publ i c woul d f ee l s aferwith c our age ous l awm en, c o nj u r i n g u p v i s i o n s o fWya t tE a r p p a t r o l l i n g T o mbst one and pr eva i l i ng i n the s hoo t outatthe O. K. Cor ra l , an d Ell i ot N es s l ea di ng h i s ban d of“Unt ouc hables” i n the que s tt o br i ng down Al Capone

. B utgi venthe am bi gui t y ofSc huh’ s s t at em en t (co n tin u ed ...) c o nt e ntto be r e l a t e d t o a mat t e r o fpub l i c i nt e r e s t
. Ind e e d, sp eech prote sting g ove rnm ent waste i s o fl egi ti m ate in te re st to th e g en er al p u b lic. Se eChakl os , 560 F.3 d at 713. Bu t we ar e l ess cer tain that Schuh’s ar ticle a c tu al l y s poke to o r pr o tested g o ve r nm en t was te
. Aga i n, De puty S ch uh i ssued the f ol l owing sta tem ent: I fy o u a r e afr ai d o r y o u ha ve l o st y o ur co ur ag e an d need two depu ti es and a se rg eant to escor t y ou ev ery t i me y o u fl y i n a n d o u to fth e a i r p o r ta nd patro l deputie s t o dri ve by your house wh en you’ re o ut o fto w n yo u shoul d res i gn and go h om e! T h en you w ou ld lift th e m or ale of th is w hole d ep artm en t (a. k.a. office). A si m ple re ading of Dep uty Schuh’s com m ent ind i cate s that he be l i eve d that the S heri ff’ s nee d fo r add i ti onal se c u rit y m ea n t t h at th e Sh er i f fh ad “los t [h is] c ou ra ge .” Sch uh did not com m en t d irectly on th e d ep artm e n t ’s w aste of taxp ayer d oll ars or the im p a c t of th e Sheriff’s conduct on t h e a vai l abi l i ty ofo ffi cer s form or e l egi ti m ate pur p o s e s ; o u r r e a d i n g o f th e s t a t e me n t s u g g e s t s th a t he f ocuse d i nstea d on the Sheri ff’ s l ack ofco urag e. A l though 416 N o. 08

- 3298

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 an d con sid e r i ng the re m ain ing an aly sis, w e ne ed no t ad d ress thi s que s t i on. w e ul ti m ate l y a gr ee that th e c onte nt o fS chuh’s sta tem ent “r el ate d t o” a m att er of pu bl i c i nter est, w e do n ot e x a mi n e th e s p e e c h ’ s c o n t e n t i n a v a c u u m, n o r d o we r ely s o l ely o n the e xpr es s l an g ua g e. W e co m m en t o n the co nt en t o fS ch uh’ s stat ementmer ely t o no te tha t an y r efer en ce t o g o ve r nm entwas te was i ndi r ec t an d tange nti al, m aking the context a m o r e i m po r ta ntc o nsi derat i on wh en dete rm i ni ng w h et her the s peech was on a m at te r o fpub l i c co nc ern. A fterexam i ni ng the co ntent and con tex t of S c h u h’s sta tem ent, we fi nd thatS chuh w as speaking o n a m att er o fpur ely pri vate c o nc ern. The c o nt ex t o fthe s pee ch, w hi ch i ncl ud es the c i rcum sta nces surr ounding i ts pu bl i ca ti o n a nd S ch uh’ s m o ti ve , i nd i ca te s th atDe puty S ch uh responded to w hat he consi dered to be a perso nal ch allen ge to h is c ou r a g e b y iss u in g h is ow n p er so n al c h all enge to Sher i ffCl ar ke’ s c oura ge. S heri ffCl ar ke poste d hi s ini ti alchal l enge w here i t would be wid ely vi ew ed by h is s u b or d in at es ; D ep u ty S c h u h p u b lish ed h is re to rtin a si m i l arf o r um

— an M DSA newsle tte r dist ribu ted to cu rrent a n d retir ed officers. A lthou gh the p lai nt iffs att em pt to l i nk S chuh’s ar ti cl e t o the c ont ro ve rs y that pr o m pted the M DS A to a ppr o ac h the medi a, no th i ng su g g es ts th at Deputy S ch uh int en ded to b r i ngt o l i g htthe Sh er iff’s a b u se of co u n ty res ou rc es , to p ro vo ke p u b lic disc ussi on about Clar ke’ s c on du ct, o r to ai r the m er i ts ofN o. 08

- 3298 17

T he p lain tiffs assert th at the di s t ri c tc our tov erem p ha sized this 5 com pon ent ofSchuh’ s tes ti m ony, bu t Depu ty Sc huh repeat ed thi s phrase three se parate t im es d u ri ng his dep osi ti on. W hen asked direct ly wh y h e w rote the art ic le , Schuh answered, after an obj ec t ion by hi s c ouns elthatthe que s t i on was as ke d and ans were d, “ I w ro te the ar t i c l e t o thr ow bac k a thi m whathe thre w at us. That’ s m y, w as

— th e w h o le p u rp o se o f th e a rt ic le .” Fur the r, the pl ai nt i ff s d id notdi s put e the defen dant ’ s pr op osed f i n d i n g s of f act o n th is is sue , no r d id they p ro p ose a n y a d d i t i o n a l fi n d i n g o f fa c tr e g a r d i n g D e p u t y S c h u h ’s m oti ve f or w ri ti ng the ar ti cl e. any r el ate d dispute. A nd m ost i m port antl y, the l anguage he used i n the tw o- sente nce s tat em ent doe s no th in g t o furthersuch a purpose. Instea d, al though S chuh’s speech m ay h av e b ee n of ge n er al p u b lic in te re st, it foc u se d so lely on “t h e p er so n al e ffec t u p on ” S c h u h, an d “t h e on ly poi nt o fthe speech wa s to furtherso m e pure l y pr i vate i nter est
. ” Gu s t af

s on , 290 F.3d at 908 ( qu otations om itted ); see also M etzg er, 367F.3d at70 2; Kokk inis , 18 5 F
. 3d at 844. Deputy S ch uh’ s o w n te sti m o ny r einf o r ce s th i s co nc l usi o n. The undi spu ted fac ts , b as ed o n S ch uh’ s depo si ti o n, state the foll ow ing : S c h uh beli eved that SheriffClarke’s “i nspir ati onalm ess age ” was chal l engi ng hi s co urag e t o perf or m hi s j ob ; Schuh w ro te hi s a rt i cl e t o questi on Cl ar k e’ s co ur ag e i n r etur n; S ch uh wa s r es po ndi ngt o the quote on the r ol l

- cal l bo ar d and inte nd ed to m ake a sa r ca st i c co m m en t ab o utClarke; a nd S ch uh wr o te the a r t i c l e to “ th r o w b a c ka th i m w h a th e th r e w a tu s . ” We 5 ca n fi nd no e vi den ce i n the r ec o r d tha t su ppo r ts pl ainti ff s’ co ntenti on that Dep u ty S chuh had anythi ng but a18 N o. 08

- 3298

T he p lain tiffs p oin t to tw o isola te d c om m en ts that su g g est a 6 bro ade r purpo s e f or Sc huh’ s c om m en t s . Sc huh s t at ed th at h e disagree d w ith usi ng d eputies to patrol Clarke’ s res id en ce “[ b]ec ause Idon ’ t think its erves any pu rpose. ” An d h e l ater s t a t e d th a th e “ mi g h th a v e ” u s e d s o me i n f o r ma t i o n fr o m a ne w sp ape r i n wri t i ng h i s ar t i c l e. Pl ai nt i ff s di d nothi ghl i ght the s e c omm e nt s be f or e the d is t r i c tc ou r t, bu te ve n i fthe y ha d, the y do n ots ugge s ttha t S c huh i nt en ded t o r ai s e a m at t erof p u b l i c c o n c e r n, a n d th e u n d i sp u t e d fa c t s s t a t e S c h u h ’s cl ear purpose f or s ub m it ti ng his art ic le

. perso nal m oti ve f orm aking hi s s tat em ent. C f. Chakl os , 56 0 6 F. 3d a t7 1 3

- 1 4 ( ho l di ngtha ts pe e c h a ddr e s s i nga p r i v ate in te re st w ith ina let te r c on ta in in g m at te rs of p u b lic i n t e r e s tw a s p r o t e c t e d a n d n o t i n gth a t“ we h a v e e mph a s i z e d tha t s pe e c h o f pu b l i c i mpo r t a nc e i s o nl y t ra nsfor m ed int o a m at te r of p riv at e c on c er n w h en it is m ot iv a t e d sole lyb y the s p e a k e r ’ s p e r so na l i nt er es ts ” ( quo ta ti o ns om itted ))

. Ou r case l aw supp orts our deter m i nati on. The part i es an d th e d ist ric t c o u r t ea c h d isc u ss ed ou r d ec isio n in Kokk inis , and w e fi nd thatDeputy Sc huh’s s pe ech here r epres ents an ev en cl ear erexam p le of the princi ple s we e xpl aine d i n that c as e. In Kokk inis , th e p lain tiff, a pol i ce o ffi cer, appeare d on a tel evi si on news prog ra m that w as re port i ng o n a fel l ow offi cer ’ s a l l ega ti on o f sex di scr i m in atio n by the pol i ce c hi ef

. 18 5 F
. 3d at 842. K o k k in is com m en ted gene rall y on th e po li ce ch ief’s “v in d ict ive n es s” an d cla im ed th at h e m a d e m an y off ic er s’ li ve s m i se ra b le. Id. Kokki ni s was r epri m anded and f i l e d s ui t, a nd we h e l d tha th i s s pe e c h wa s u np ro -N o. 08

- 3298 19
tect ed by the F i rs t Am endm ent b ecause , al though s ex dis c r i mi na t i o n i n the po l i c e de pa r t men t i s un do ub t e dly a m at te r of p u b lic c on c er n, he “h ad a lim ite d int er es t in spe ak i ngo n [ th at ] s ubj ec t, ” he kne w l ittl e abo utthe a l l e g a t i o ns , a n d h e s o u g h t“ s i mply t o fu r th e r h i s o wn go al o f ex p re ss in g h is d isp lea su re w ith th e C h ief’s p olici es. ” Id. at84 4. W e r ec en tly reach ed the o ppo si te r es ul t i n Chakl os , fi nd i ng spee ch by gov er nm ent e m p loyees to be prot ecte d because it r ai sed m att er s o fbo th pri vate andpub l i c co nc e r n . 5 6 0 F
. 3 d a t 7 1 3

- 1 4

. T h e p l a i n t i ff s i n C haklos w ere em p loy ed by th e Illin o i s Sta te P olic e t o t ra infore n sic sc ien tis ts ; th ey als o ow n ed an ind ep en d en t fo re n sic se rv ice s c o m p a n y. Id. at70 9. W hen the em plo yee s di sc ov er ed th at th e p olic e a w a r d e d a c on tr ac t fo r for en sic tr ai ni ng witho ut a bi dd i ng pro cess, theywrot e a l ett er pr o te st i ngthe c o nt r ac t an d s ta tingtha t their co m pan y c ou ld p ro vid e “s u b st an tia l s av in gs t o th e St at e of Illino is.” Id. We he l d tha te v e n tho ugh the e mpl o y e e s c l e a r l y h a d a p er so nal m oti ve f ordrafti ng the l ett er

— to pr o cur e th e busi ness f or them sel ves

— they ne v e r t he l ess al so i ntended to hi ghl i ght that I l l i noi s wa s w asti ng m oney b y e m p loy in g a n on -c om p et itiv e b id p ro c es s. Id. at71 3- 14. The e m pl o y ee s’ pur po se i n s p eaking was mix ed, the l et te r ’ s co nt en t co nt aine d m at te r s o fpub l i c i nt er es t, a nd the s pe e c h de s e r v e d p r o t e cti on u nd e r the F i r s tAmen dm en t. Id. at 714. These tw o case s i l l um i nate th e boundary w e dra w to d et er m in e w h et h er sp ee c h ad d re ss es a m at t e r o f p u b lic c on c er n, an d w e fin d th at D ep u ty Sc h u h ’s a rt icle falls20 N o. 08

- 3298
on the Kokk inis sid e o f th e fe n c e . U n like th e le tt er in C ha k l os , wh i ch co ntai ned a m att ero fpubli c i nter est because i t s tat ed that I lli noi s was wasti ng ta xpayer m one y, Sch uh ’s arti cle did not d irec t ly q ue stion C larke’s fi scal re sponsibi l i ty or ra i se the pu bl i c ra m i fi cation s of Cl ar k e’ s co nduc t. Al th o ug h a r ea derm ay in te r pr etthe sta tem ent thi s way, the am bi gui ty i n the conte n t m ake s th e con tex t of th e sp eech m ore im p ortan t. T he re c ord reveal s that S chuh m ade hi s s tat em ent o ut o fa purely per so na l i nt er es t, wher ea s th e p l aint i ff s i n Chakl os had a m i xe d m o ti ve f o r wri tingthe i r l et te r . And l i k e th e p l aint i ffi n Kokk inis , wh o em plo yed a m uch m or e pu b lic pla tf or m f orhi s com m en ts, S chuh’s ar ti cl e in the St ar “w as n otd es ign ed t o a d d re ss a m at te r of p u b lic c on c er n,” 185 F. 3d a t 84 4, and the conte nt o fhi s s peech does nothi ng to o ver com e that f act. The M DS A an d S ch uh al so ci te the publ i c co ntro ver sy surr ounding Sher i ff Clar ke to supp or t thei r ar gum ent that S ch uh’ s spe ec h meri ts F i r stAm en dm en t pr o te ct i o n, w here as the defendants not e that there i s no ev i dence ofany m edi a stor y rel ate d to Clar ke’ s m i suse ofdeputie s. W e a gr ee w i th the M DSA and Schu h o n o ne point: w hetherthe Jou r n al S e n t ine l p ubl i shed an ar ti cl e i s no t dispos i ti ve ofwh etherS chuh w as sp ea king on a m att er ofpubli c co n c er n. The pi vot alquesti on i s no t the actual prese nce o fpubli c co ntro ver sy, but w hetherthe speech m i ght info rm the pu bl i c debat e o n an is sue o fl egi ti m ate in te r e s t to th e p u b lic a t t h e t im e itis p u b lish ed

. Cf. Zorzi, 30 F. 3d at 897 n. 11 ( noti ng tha t m edi a co ver age i s no t d isp os itiv e o f p u b lic c on c er n an d st at in g t h at “[i]tis i m port ant no t t o eq u ate the pu bl i c’ s cur i osi ty about aN o. 08

- 3298 21

m att erwith the m att erh avi ng so ci eta l r am i fi cati ons” (qu otations om itted ))

. I n thi s ca se , h ow ev er, thi s di st i nc ti o n do es no t al te r o ur anal ysi s. A l though S heri ffC l ar ke’ s r e t al i at i on aga i nst S c h u h g a r n e r e d a g r e a t d e a l o f me d i a a t t e n t i o n, we m us t stil l e v a lu ate th e fullcont en t, con tex t, an d f orm ofS chuh’s spe ec h a nd de te r m i ne whethe r itwas o n a mat t e r o fp ub l i c c o nc e r n a tthe t i me i twa s p ub l i s he d. Inth e e n d , Sch u h ca n n otav oid th at h e w ro te h is shor t sta tem ent, w hi ch on i ts f ace m er ely questi oned S he r i ffCl ar k e’ s co ur ag e, f o r pur ely pe r so na l r ea so ns . The pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthe d i str i ct c ourt“m yopi cal l y” negle c te d t h e fu ll con te x t o f Sc h u h ’s s p ee c h, pa rt icu lar ly bec au se it did n ot con ne ct h is arti c le to the M D SA ’s i ni ti al m ee ting wi th th e pr es s. H ad i t do ne so , th e pla i nti ff s cl ai m , the “poi nt” o fthe speech would have pro ven l ar g ely i m m at er i al

. W e do no t s ee how thi s i s so . F i r st, the pla i nti ff s hav e no t pr oduced evi dence, apar t fro m ti m i ng, thatSheri ffCl ar ke’ s Deuter onom y pos ti ng was i n r es po ns e to the M DS A’s meet i ngwith th e pre ss . But m or e im port antl y, adding thi s t o the c onte xt does not alter the ou tcom e. Sch uh ’s referen ce to th e Sheriff’s m isuse of de p ut ies bolstered his cha ll en ge to the Sheriff’s c o ur a g e b y p r o v i di ng ex a mpl e s o fh i s p ur po r t e d c o wa r di ce. W e do no t i nt en d to es tabl i shthe spe ak er ’ s m o ti ve as the deter m i nati ve f acto r i n a F i rs t Am endm ent r eta l i ati on claim

. B ut w he re, as he re, th e p ub li c com p one nt of Sch uh ’s sp ee c h w as u n st at ed , in d ire c t, an d ta n ge n tia l t o h is pri m ar y purpose , wh i ch w as a purel y p ersonalchal l enge22 N o. 08

- 3298
to the S heri ff, we cann ot extend Fi rs t Am endm ent pr otect ion. W e reach t h is conclu sion after carefully con side ring the entire con ten t, cont ex t, an d f orm of Sch uh ’s ar ti cl e. Because w e find that Deputy S chuh d i d not speak on a m at ter o fpubli c co ncer n, we need not proceed t o the Pic k eringbal anci ng te st, and sum m ar y j ud gm en t in t h e d efe n d an t’s fav or w as ap p ro p ria te
. See M etzg er, 36 7 F
. 3d at 703.

B. Pr i orRe s t r ai nt W e ne xtc o ns ide r whethe r Di r ec ti ve No. 1 3- 05 , the revised Con fi d en tiali ty Policy i ssu e d b y the Sh eriff’ s O ffice , i s an u nc ons titution al prior restraint. Th e M D SA and D eputy S chuh argue th at t h e r evi sed Pol i cy, i ssued the day after t hey fi l ed sui t, was a di re ct r esponse to th e m edi a co ve r ag e o fS ch uh’ s r ea ss i g nm en t an d preve nts a n e m plo yee fro m di vul gi ng “o ffi ci alag ency busi ness” to anyo ne, i ncl ud i ng wh en speak i ng as a ci ti ze n o n m at te r s o f publ i c co nc ern. The di st r i ctcou rt d e t e r mi n e d th a tth e P o l i c y wa s n o tu n l a wfu l, a n d we r e v i e w th i s d e c i s i o n o fl a w deno vo . T he pred eces sor t o D irective 13 -05 s tated th at “M em bers sh al l k ee p de par tment alb usines s co nfi den ti al ” an d prohibi ted di scussing o ffi ci ali nfo rm atio n unle ss dir ecte d bya s upe r vi so r ora s r equi r ed byl aw. The r el ev an t port i on o fthe new pol i cy re ads: I t is th e po li cy of the M il w au kee C ou nt y Sheriff’s Offi ce ( M CSO) that a l l S heri ff’ s Offi ce e m plo yee s sh all ke ep offic ial a ge n c y b u sin es s c on fid en tia l.N o. 08

- 3298 23 They shal l noti m part i t t o anyo ne exce pt thos e f o r who m i t i s i nt en ded, o r a s di r ec te d b y the S h e r i ffo r h i s d e s i g n e e , o r a s o r d e r e d b y l a w. No m embe r o fthe a g en cy sh al l spe ako n b eh al fo fthe o r g an i za ti o n u nles s au th o r i ze d t o do s o b y the Sher i ffo r hi s desi gnee. The pri m ar y c hanges to the pol i cy ar e that “ departm ental bus i ne ss ” be ca m e “o ffi ci ala g en cyb us i ness,” a nd the She riff, rat h er than an em p loyee’s sup ervisory offi cer, now poss ess es the a uthor i ty to d ire ct the di sse m i nati on o fs uchinf o r m at i o n. Befo re rea c h ing the m er i ts ofthe pla i nti ff s’ ar gum ent, w e fi rs t no te that they m ay rai se a f aci alchal l enge to Dir ecti ve 13- 05 eve n though nei th er Depu ty Schuh nor an y o t h e r d ep ar tm en ta l em p loy ee h as ev er be en d isc iplined fo r vi ol ating i t o r i ts predece ss or . Se eWe r ns i ng v. Thom ps on , 4 23 F
. 3d 73 2, 743

- 44 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( co l l ec ting case s a nd not i ng tha t “ gov er nm ent e m plo yee s whose speech i s l i m i ted byan inter nal pol i cy ora pre- cl ear ance dir ecti ve such a s [defendant’s ] need notse ek perm i ssi on to s pea ko r v i o l at e th e di r ec ti ve i n or dert o c ha l l en g e th e d i r e c t i v e i n c o u r t ” )

. T h u s w e a d d r e s s t h e p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i m. The ter m “pri orr est ra i nt” desc ribes “ ‘ adm i ni st rati ve a nd j ud i c i a l o r de r s f or b i ddi ng ce r ta i n c o m m uni ca ti o ns w hen i ssued i n advance o fthe ti m e that s uch com m unica

ti ons ar e t o occur . ’ ” S a m ue l s on , 5 26 F
. 3d at1 05 1 ( quo ting A lexa nd er v. U nited Sta tes , 509 U. S

. 5 44, 5 50 ( 19 93 ) )

. The S up r e me C o u r th a s e x p l a i n e d h o w w e a r e t o d e t e r m i ne w h et h er a ru l e c on st itu te s a p rior res tr ain t, s e eSe
. Pr om o-24 N o. 08

- 3298 t i ons, Ltd

. v. Conrad, 420 U

. S. 546, 554 (1975 ), bu t before any re str i cti on m ay be uncons ti tuti onal, i t m ust a pp l y t o sp ee c h p ro te c te d by th e F irs t A m e n d m en t, Samuel s on , 526 F. 3d at 1052 ( ci ti ng U nited Sta t e s v. Na t’l Treasu ry Em pl oye e s U ni on , 513 U

. S. 454, 465-66 (1995 ))

. A s w e m enti oned abo ve, a pu bl i c em plo yee does not ha ve a pr o te ct ed i ntere sti n s pee chunl es s he i s spe ak i ng as a cit ize n on a m at te r of p u b lic c on c er n . G arce tt i, 547 U

. S. at 421; Tr e a s u ry E m plo yees , 5 13 U. S

. a t 46 6. W he r ea s o ur ea r l i erdi sc us si o n c o nc erned whethe r s pee chwas “ o n a m at te r ofpub l i c co nc ern, ” we no w exa m i ne the “ ci ti ze n” co m po ne nto fthi s r equi r emen t. Pub l i c empl o y ee s who sp eak pur su an t to the i r o ffi ci aldut i es “ ar e no t spe ak i ng as ci ti zens f orFi rs t Am endm ent purpos es. ” Gar c et ti, 547 U .S. at 4 21. The S up re m e Cour t e xplained that such speech “owes i ts exi ste nce to a pu bl i c em plo yee’s p ro fessi onalr esponsibi l i ti es, ” an d r est ri cti ng i t “ si m plyr efl ects the e xerci se ofem plo yerco ntro l o verwh at the e m plo yer its el fhas com m i ssi oned orcr eat ed. ” Id. a t 4 2 1

- 2 2
. The Cou r t di d no t ar ti cul at e a f r amewor kf o r de term i ni ng w hetherpart i cul arspeec h ar ose fro m o ne’ s pro fess i onal du ti es, but i t s tat ed that the i nquir y shoul d b e “a pract i cal on e” n otc on fin ed t o for m al j ob d es c rip tio n s. Id. at42 4- 25. T he refore, before balancin g the pa rties’ p ertinen t interes ts acc o r di ngto the S upr eme Co ur t’ s o pi ni o n in Treasu ry E m plo yees , we m ust fi rs t a sk w hetherDir ect i ve 13- 05 re gul ate s s ol el y unprot ecte d speech, i
. e. , thatw h i ch owes i ts exi ste nce to an em plo yee ’ s du ti es as a M il w aukee C ou n ty p olic e o ffice r. See C rue v. A ik en , 37 0 F
. 3d 668, 67 8- 79 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( expla i ni ng the Treasu ry E m plo yeesN o. 08

- 3298 25 bal anci ng te st and i n w hat c ase s i t a pp l i es)

. The di stri ct cou rt an sw ered th is qu estion affi rm atively an d de term i ned that the Po l i cy w as not an unlawful pri orr est ra i nt. The pla i nti f f s, h ow ev er , a ss ert t hat t he Pol i cy i m perm i ssibl y pr eve nts Depart m ent e m plo yee s fro m re l aying any i nfo rm ati on “ re l ate d to ” o ffi ci alag ency bus i ne ss , whi che xten d s be y o nd s pee chmade “pu r su an t to” o r that “owed it s e xi ste nce t o” an em plo yee ’ s j ob du ti es. W i thout questi on, and as the pl ai nti ff s a cknowle dge, Dir ecti ve 13-05’ s pro hibi ti on o n em plo yee speec h “o n behal f of the or gani zati on” re gul ate s unp ro tect ed sp eech owing i ts exi ste nce t o the e m p loyee’ s pro fess i onalduti es. SeeGa rc et ti, 547U .S. at 4 21 ; Call ahan , 52 6 F

. 3d at 1044

. The r ea l di spu te i n thi s ca se i s th e ex te ntt o w hi chthe r equi r ementt o “ k ee p o ffi ci ala g en cybu sines s co nfi den

ti al ” en co m pas se s spe ec h b y a n e m pl o y ee a s a ci ti ze n. W e fi nd thatDir ecti ve 13- 05 i s no t a n un law ful pri or re str ai nt be cause i t doe s no t a pp l y to speech prot ecte d bythe Fir stAm en dm en t. The M DS A and S ch uh a r g ue f oran e xpansive int erpreta ti on o fthe phrase “offi ci al age ncy business. ” They sugge st th at Dir ecti ve 13- 05 prec l ud e s a nys pe e c h “ r e l a t e d t o ” s uc h b us i ne s s , ev en th ou gh those w ord s d o not ap p ear in the P oli cy itself

. W e do not re ad the Pol i cy so bro adly

. Rather, we fi nd that i tr e g u l a t e s o n l y s p e e c h “ g r o u n d e d i n th e p u b l i c e mplo yee ’ s pro fess i onalduti es. ” Samuel s on , 52 6 F

. 3d at 1052

. The t er m i no l o g y o fthe Po l i cy, whi chmake s no referenc e to sp eech as a citizen, is cen tral to ou r d e t e rm in at ion . Th e P olic y c ov er s o n ly “ offic ial a ge n c y b u si-26 N o. 08

- 3298
ness, ” a phrase co ntai n in g three se parat e co m ponents. Fi rs t, the re gul ate d info rm ati on m ust be “busi ness, ” r ather th an m er ely a to p ic o f ge n er al in te re st . Ofco u rs e, a pol i ce depar tm ent’ s business m ay be o fpubli c i nter est, b u t t h e t er m atlea st rem ov es a n y t h i n g t an ge n tia lly “r el at ed t o ” the depa r tmentf r o m i ts co ve r ag e. Se co nd, the term “agen cy” su ggests that the b u s in ess m us t be gen erated by or pertain to the M il w au kee C ou nt y Sheriff’s Offi ce . Thi r d, a nd i n o urv i ew mos t i m po r ta nt l y, the re gu lat e d info rm at ion m u st be “o fficia l,” w h ich ty p ica lly m eans ei th er “ [o]f o r re l ating to an o ffi ce o r posi ti on o f tr ust o r author i ty, ” o r “[ a] uthor i zed or a p p roved bya pr o pe r a utho r i t y . ” Bl a c k ’ s La w Di c t i onar y 1 1 1 9 ( 8 th e d. 20 04 ). B y re q u irin g t h e re gu lat ed sp ee c h to be “ o f f i c ial,” th e Po l i cy proper l y r est ri cts only s pe e c h g r o un de d i n or o win gi t s e x i s t e n c e t o th e e mp l o y e e s ’ j o b d u t i e s . We tr u st th at th e M ilw au k e e C ou n ty Sh er iff’s O ffice w ill en for c e it s p olic y a c c or d in gly , as ith as d on e fo r ap p ro x im at ely t w en ty -n in e y ea rs ; i f it d oe s n ot, i t p ot en tia lly exposes it se l fto an a s- appli ed chal l enge to the Po l i cy o r a cl ai m f o r F i r stAm en dm en t r et al i at i o n un derthe Conni ck

- Pic ke r i ngl i ne o fcas es described abo ve. To support thei r cl ai m thatDirec ti ve 13- 05 w as i nt e nd e d t o sque l c h s pe e c h pr o t e c t e d b y th e Fi r s tAmen dm en t, the M DS A and S ch uh also e m pha si ze tha t th e Di r e c t i v e wa s i s s u e d th e d a y a ft e r th e y fi l e d th e i r l a wsu it. W e d o n otd en y t h at t h i s t im in g is s om ew h at su sp ici ous. But acco rdi ng to the re cor d, the Sher i ff’ s Offi ce had be enco ns i der i ngr ev i si o ns f o r a numbe r o fy ea r s, a nd no em p loy ee h as be en d isc ip lin ed u n d er th e n ew or th e o ldN o. 08

- 3298 27 p o l i c y . M o r e i mpo r t a n t l y, t h e t i mi n gdo e s no ta l t e r th a twe m ust anal yze the Pol i cy as a whole and deter m i ne wh ether i t r egul ate s pro tect ed s p ee ch. I fthe re vi si on was a kneej er k response to the c ontr ove rs y s urr ounding Dep uty Schuh, i t cer tainl y did not sti fl e cri ti ci sm f ro m offi cer s, em p loy ee s, an d Sc h u h reg ar d in g t h e Sh er iff’s m isu se o f h is author i ty. Departm ent e m plo yee s hav e l evi ed countl ess cri ti ci sm s a gainst the S heri ffr egardi ng thi s co ntro ver sy an d oth er s, b ot h b efo re an d aft er th e re vis ion, res u ltin g in no di sci pline under e i therve rs i on o fthe Pol i cy. Last, w e ar e not convi nced that vest i n g t h e authori ty to p er m it d iss em in at ion of “o fficia l ag en c y b u si n e s s ” in th e ha nds o fS he r i ffCl ar k e o r hi s des i g ne e r en der s th e new Pol i cy unlawful

. Thi s chang e alte rs fro m wh om an em plo yee m ust see k perm i ssi on t o speak, but i t doe s no t expand the s co peof the speech g ove rned bythe new Pol i cy. T h e Sh er i ffi s s ti l l co nfined by the Pol i cy and m ay not re str i ct c onst i tuti onal l y pr ote cted s peech m ad e byan em plo yee speak i ng as a ci ti zen. W e ar e co nfi dent thatbo th the purpos e a nd l anguage o fDir ecti ve 13- 05 encom pass only sp eech th at “ow es its existen ce to a p ub li c em p loyee’s profess i onalr esponsibi l i ti es. ” G arce tt i, 54 7 U.S

. at42 1. B ec au se th e re vis ed C on fid en tia lity P olic y reg u lat es on ly spe ec h n o t su bj ec t to Firs t Am en dm en t pr o te ct i o n, the P olic y is n otan u n law fu l p rior res tr ain t, s e eS a mu e l s on , 52 6 F
. 3d at1 05 2, a nd s um m ary j ud g m en t i n the de fen dants’ f avo r w as appropri ate
.28 N o. 08

- 3298 III. C ON CLU SI ON W e fi nd tha t Deputy S ch uh’ s st at ementwas no t o n a m at te r of p u b lic c on c er n, a n d h e c an n otsu st ain h is Fi rs t Am endm ent r eta l i ati on cl ai m s. W e a l so fi nd that Dir ecti ve 13- 05 i s no t a n unla w ful pri orr estra i nt. Fo r these r eas ons, sum m ar y j ud gm ent was appro pri ate f or al l o fthe pla i nti ff s’ federa l cl ai m s, and w e A FFIRM .

7- 21- 09