Opinion ID: 697240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applying Pickering/NTEU

Text: 27 We begin our substantive discussion of the regulations by briefly enunciating the interests on either side of the Pickering/ NTEU balance. We then examine several attributes of the regulations that we think must inform our evaluation of the weight to be assigned the competing interests. 28
29 We have already noted the nature of the employees' interest in this challenge; their interest lies in receiving reimbursement for travel expenses necessary to make teaching, speaking or writing appearances on matters that relate[ ] to the [their] official duties. See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.807(a). The government concedes that the speech at issue touches on matters of public concern, thus satisfying the threshold requirement for protection under Pickering. 30 The government contends, however, that because the regulations do not ban speech concerning employees' official duties, but only remove an incentive to speak on these matters, the regulations impose only a moderate burden on appellants and others similarly situated. This argument was also made in NTEU, where the Supreme Court rejected it: 31 [The honoraria ban's] prohibition on compensation unquestionably imposes a significant burden on expressive activity.... Publishers compensate authors because compensation provides a significant incentive toward more expression. By denying respondents that incentive, the honoraria ban induces them to curtail their expression if they wish to continue working for the government. 32 NTEU, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1014 (citations omitted). 33