"Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, of the Northern District of California, decided earlier this month to dismiss Daniel Chung's First Amendment lawsuit alleging that he was the victim of retaliation for writing a February 2021 editorial submission. The opinion article, published in The Mercury News, argued that criminal-justice reforms had weakened consequences for serious offenders. The heart of the First Amendment disagreement between Chung and Rosen was whether Chung was writing in his personal capacity or as a representative of the district attorney's office."
"If he were presenting the opinion in his official capacity, he would have been subject to approval from his superiors. Chung has always claimed he was writing as a private citizen; Rosen, through the County Counsel's office, emphasized that the discipline of Chung was not rooted in the content of the op-ed but in him speaking for the office without authorization."
A federal judge dismissed Daniel Chung's First Amendment retaliation lawsuit after an arbitrator precluded him from establishing he wrote as a private citizen. Chung submitted a February 2021 op-ed to The Mercury News arguing criminal-justice reforms weakened consequences for serious offenders and was attributed as a deputy district attorney. The county argued readers would reasonably interpret the op-ed as representing the district attorney's office and that discipline targeted unauthorized representation rather than the content. The court held the speech was not constitutionally protected, and Chung is pursuing a second appeal and a political bid to unseat his boss.
Read at The Mercury News
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]