The defense аttоrney in а pending criminаl case decided tо challenge a search warrant due tо inaccuracies he found in the supporting affidavit. He contacted a deputy district attorney who determined the affidavit did in fact contain serious misrepresentations. The deputy district attorney submitted a memorandum of his findings to his superiors and recommended that the case be dismissed. However, the department decided to proceed with the prosecution. The deputy district attorney was called by the defense attorney to testify at a hearing to disclose his findings. The trial court upheld the validity of the warrant nonetheless. Following this incident, the deputy district attorney was reassigned to a different position, transferred to another courthouse, and denied a promotion. He filed an employment grievance in federal court, claiming the department’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights. The district court found the deputy district attorney had suffered no retaliation and that the changes in his job had been dictated by legitimate staffing and work-related concerns. This decision was reversed on appeal, based on a finding that the memorandum the deputy district attorney wrote dealt with a matter of public concern and his supervisors “failed even to suggest disruption or inefficiency in the workings of the district attorney's office.” The government appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which has granted certiorari. Should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Appeals decision?
A principle stаted in the hоlding in the Hоsаnnа-Tabоr case is: