WASHINGTON--A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public employees who make statements as part of their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment should make it easier for public sector employees to discipline employees, experts say.

And while the 5-4 ruling in Garcetti vs. Ceballos has no bearing on private employers or on whistleblower statutes, it does give some indication on how the Supreme Court may rule on future cases involving employee dismissals, they say.

The court ruled May 30 in a case brought by Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, who concluded that an affidavit police used to obtain a search warrant made serious misrepresentations.

He relayed his finding to his supervisors and followed up with a memorandum. Supervisors and, later, a district court rejected his assertions and allowed the search warrant to stand. Mr. Ceballos later was transferred to another post. He claimed the action was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment right of free speech and 14th Amendment right to due process.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that actions taken against Mr. Ceballos violated his First Amendment rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. "We hold 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," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 ruling.

"Restricting speech that owesits existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities...simply reflects the exercise of employercontrol over what the employer itself has commissioned or created," the ruling said. "Ceballos did not act as a citizen when he went about conducting his professional activities."

Reacting to the ruling, Philip Berkowitz, an attorney with Nixon Peabody L.L.P. in New York, said the decision puts public sector employers "closer to the same footing as private employers." Generally, private employees may not sue their employers for constitutional violations, he said.

The decision lets government managers "manage honestly," said Daniel P. Westman, an attorney with Morrison & Foerster L.L.P.in McLean, Va. The ruling "makesit harder for those kinds of routine types of disagreement that happen all the time to rise to the levelof First Amendment protected speech," so that managers can make personnel decisions without exposing themselves to these constitutional claims, Mr. Westman said.

"We have, in the past, seen a fairly significant number of these typesof cases brought as First Amendment, free speech cases: 'I complained to my superior about what I believe was going wrong in internal memos and I was doing so pursuant to my job responsibilities,"' said J. Scott Smith, an attorney with Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff in Sacramento, Calif. "This case, clearly in my view, puts substantial limits on the viability of that theory." Even so, such cases "still might very well fall within the protections of some whistleblower-type statute or another," he said.

Mary E. Pivec, an attorney with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton L.L.P. in Washington, said, "The court made it very clear that it didn't mean to eviscerate other remedies that the state may have created, such as state and local whistleblower laws," and remedies that local governments have provided for public employees who raise concerns about fraud or abuse.

Bradford K. Newman, an attorney with Paul, Hastings, Janofsky& Walker L.L.P. in Palo Alto, Calif., focused on job descriptions. "I think it's important that employerstake another look at job descriptions, and make sure they comport with the employee's actual jobduties."

Additionally, Mr. Newman said, "There is some inkling that the Supreme Court is saying all criticism doesn't necessarily warrant protection, even if an adverse job consequence follows."

"The court is saying, 'Look, we're not going to be the super police department that is going to regulate all the nuances of the employment relationship,"' said Brian T. Ashe, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in San Francisco.

The decision may also haveimplications for whistleblower suits brought against private sector employers, said Robert S. Whitman, an attorney with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff L.L.P. in New York. Some decisions have held that "this kindof everyday workplace interaction could be the basis of a whistleblower claim," he said. "This will be helpful decision" for private sector employers in dealing with this issue, he said.

"The devil will be in the details of how the courts of appeal interpret the case," Mr. Smith said.