Jonah Patel
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly protect someone performing a job, but it does provide certain rights and freedoms that may be relevant to employment. For example, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, which could apply to employees speaking out on matters of public concern. The Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted as protecting economic rights and due process, although the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the scope of these protections in some cases. Additionally, advocates of a strict construction of the Constitution argue that the federal government may only perform functions that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Does the Constitution protect someone performing a job? | No |
Explore related products
$11.29 $19.99
What You'll Learn
The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment
The First Amendment protects employees' freedom of speech, but only when they are acting as private citizens and not when they are performing their job duties. This means that an employer can control what an employee says while they are on the job, but not what they say as a private citizen on matters of public concern.
The Fourteenth Amendment, meanwhile, has been interpreted in various ways when it comes to workers' rights. Soon after the amendment was adopted, the U.S. Supreme Court drained the Privileges and Immunities Clause of its power, interpreting the rights it protected as being only those of federal citizenship, which were already protected by other parts of the Constitution. In later cases, the Court gave the government almost unlimited power to regulate economic affairs. However, some scholars argue that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment does protect a right to work.
Felons' Voting Rights: Constitutional Protection or State Decision?
You may want to see also
Public employees and their First Amendment rights
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that employees must be acting as private citizens to receive First Amendment protection. This means that they are not acting as private citizens while performing their job duties. In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court stated that "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline".
So, to receive First Amendment protection, the employee must be on their own time (clocked out) and speaking in a forum for citizen expression on matters of public concern. This means that public employees do not have First Amendment rights while performing their job duties. However, they retain their First Amendment rights when speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.
The Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted as protecting economic rights, which could be relevant to public employees and their First Amendment rights. In later cases, the Court gave the government significant leeway to regulate economic affairs. Additionally, the First Amendment was the basis for Janus, which did not carry over to the private sector.
The US Constitution: Protecting Citizens or the Powerful?
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment and the right to work
The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a right to work. The U.S. Supreme Court has drained the Privileges and Immunities Clause of its vigor, reading the Clause as a redundancy. The rights it protected were only those of federal citizenship, which were already protected by other parts of the Constitution.
While the Court later recognised economic rights under the Due Process Clause, it sustained that view for only a few decades. In later cases like Nebbia v. New York, United States v. Carolene Products, and Williamson v. Lee Optical, it gave the government almost carte blanche to regulate economic affairs.
The First Amendment does not protect employees while they are performing their job duties. In the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court decided that employees must be acting as private citizens to receive First Amendment protection. That is, they are not acting as private citizens while performing their job duties.
Protesting and the Constitution: What Are Your Rights?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Court uses a two-part test to determine if the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been violated. First, it looks to see if a law discriminates against people from out of state regarding fundamental rights, such as the right to acquire and possess property, and the economic right to pursue a livelihood. The second part of the test focuses on whether the state is justified in the discrimination.
The primary author of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. The common historical view is that Bingham's primary inspiration was the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the United States Constitution.
ISPs and the Constitution: What Protections Exist?
You may want to see also
The Due Process Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides protections that are similar to those of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, except that while the Fifth Amendment applies to federal government actions, the Fourteenth Amendment binds the states. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of protections, including procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a prohibition against vague laws; incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.
Protective Tariffs: Constitutional Quandary or Economic Savior?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to work.
The Fourteenth Amendment includes the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which was originally meant to protect rights deeply rooted in the American legal tradition. However, the Supreme Court has since drained this clause of its vigor, interpreting the rights it protects as those of federal citizenship, which are already protected by other parts of the Constitution.
During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court recognised a liberty of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment. It used this liberty to strike down dozens of laws, including many state labour laws. However, the Court later abandoned economic rights and instead discovered new "privacy" rights, such as the rights to contraception, marital privacy, and reproductive freedom.
Yes, in Tiwari v. Friedlander, petitioners challenged a state "certificate of need" scheme, arguing that it interfered with their right to run a home-services business and their right to earn a living under the Fourteenth Amendment.
