Whether a government employee's truthful testimony at a judicial hearing qualifies as speech on a matter of public concern, such that it is entitled to protection under the First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED In Lane v. Franks, this Court held that “the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities.” 573 U.S. 228, 238 (2014). Lane reached that holding through a straightforward application of this Court’s precedent in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, (2006) and Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), which establish that a public employee’s speech falls within the ambit of the First Amendment’s protection if it is speech “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” Lane, 573 U.S. at 237 (quoting Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418). In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit held—in acknowledged conflict with the Third and Fifth Circuits—that a government employee is not entitled to First Amendment protection for truthful testimony provided in a child custody proceeding because that testimony is not speech “on a matter of public concern.” The question presented is: Whether a government employee’s truthful testimony at a judicial hearing qualifies as speech on a matter of public concern, such that it is entitled to protection under the First Amendment. (i)