Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

B 

When  it  comes  to  Mr.  Kennedy’s  free  speech  claim,  our 
precedents remind us that the First Amendment’s protec-
tions  extend  to  “teachers  and  students,”  neither  of  whom 
“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or ex-
pression at the schoolhouse gate.”  Tinker v. Des Moines In-
dependent  Community  School  Dist.,  393  U. S.  503,  506 
(1969); see also Lane v. Franks, 573 U. S. 228, 231 (2014).
Of  course,  none  of  this  means  the  speech  rights  of  public 
school  employees  are  so  boundless  that  they  may  deliver 
any message to anyone anytime they wish.  In addition to 
being  private  citizens,  teachers  and  coaches  are  also  gov-
ernment  employees  paid  in  part  to  speak  on  the  govern-
ment’s behalf and convey its intended messages.

To account for the complexity associated with the inter-
play  between  free  speech  rights  and  government  employ-
ment, this Court’s decisions in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of 
Township  High  School  Dist.  205,  Will  Cty.,  391  U. S.  563 
(1968),  Garcetti,  547  U. S.  410,  and  related  cases  suggest
proceeding in two steps.  The first step involves a threshold
inquiry into the nature of the speech at issue.  If a public 
employee  speaks  “pursuant  to  [his  or  her]  official  duties,” 
this Court has said the Free Speech Clause generally will
not  shield  the  individual  from  an  employer’s  control  and 
discipline because that kind of speech is—for constitutional 
purposes  at  least—the  government’s  own  speech.  Id.,  at 
421. 

At the same time and at the other end of the spectrum,
when an employee “speaks as a citizen addressing a matter 
of public concern,” our cases indicate that the First Amend-
ment may be implicated and courts should proceed to a sec-
ond step.  Id., at 423.  At this second step, our cases suggest 
that courts should attempt to engage in “a delicate balanc-
ing of the competing interests surrounding the speech and
its consequences.”  Ibid.  Among other things, courts at this