Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights.

[1] The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony” (Page 6, section I).

Lane was then subpoenaed to testify “regarding the events that led to his terminating Schmitz” in two federal trials for fraud (Section 1, para.

Lane then sued Franks in “federal district court and alleged that his termination from the CITY program was in retaliation for his testimony against Schmitz and therefore violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

However, “previous precedent, specifically Morris v. Crow, had held that public employee testimony was unprotected speech, and thus when Franks fired Lane, he was not violating a clearly established constitutional right” (Para.

[3] The court remanded the case for further proceedings dealing with Frank's defense of sovereign immunity in his official capacities.

One was filed by the American government on a neutral ground, both advocating for affirming and reversing part of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.

[5] Among the most notable organizations to file briefs in support of Lane were the ACLU, Alliance Defending Freedom, and National Whistle Blowers Center.

All of those media outlets applauded the Supreme Court for protecting the public employee's freedom of speech rights, while also noting the hurdle Lane faced in actually winning damages.

In the second part of her opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that Mr. Franks, the official who fired him, was protected by qualified immunity” (Para.

[citation needed] The most recent development comes from Heffernan v. City of Paterson, decided in April 2016, which dealt with a similar issue.