In a pivotal decision on Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's ruling, thereby reviving a lawsuit by Samantha Long, a former court clerk in New Lebanon, New York. Long alleges she was wrongfully terminated for her cooperation with a state investigation into alleged judicial misconduct by her superior, Judge Jessica Byrne.

Long was involved in a New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigation concerning Byrne, who was suspected of intervening in cases for personal acquaintances and leaking confidential information. Following her cooperation, which included providing case files to investigators, Long claims she was fired after refusing to discuss the investigation with Byrne, who later resigned with an agreement barring her from future judicial roles.

The lawsuit contends that Long's dismissal violated her First Amendment rights and protections under New York's whistleblower statutes. The initial dismissal by the US District Court for the Northern District of New York in November 2024 was based on the premise that Long’s actions were part of her official duties, thus not protected under free speech. However, the appeals court found that her refusal to discuss the investigation with Byrne was outside her job responsibilities and protected as free speech.

This case invokes the Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006 Supreme Court decision, which states public employees' speech isn't protected under the First Amendment when made as part of their official duties. The Second Circuit clarified this, contrasting with its 2011 decision in Anemone v. MTA, which held that similar communications by a public employee were considered within professional duties.

The court's recent decision emphasized that Long's actions were motivated by a civic obligation to uphold the law, rather than by her employment duties, setting a precedent for how public employees' interactions with investigations are viewed legally.

This ruling not only reinstates Long's federal constitutional claim but also her claims under state whistleblower laws, marking a significant step in defining the scope of protected speech for public employees involved in misconduct investigations. The case has been remanded for further proceedings, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against retaliatory practices for lawful cooperation with misconduct probes.