U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

First Amendment and Independent Contractors: The U.S. Supreme Court Expands Governmental Liability

NCJ Number
171982
Journal
Federal Lawyer Volume: 44 Issue: 4 Dated: (May 1997) Pages: 46-51
Author(s)
T S Welch; B L Goldstein
Date Published
1997
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court has extended the First Amendment's protection against speech-motivated terminations to government independent contractors.
Abstract
In Board of County Comm'rs, Wabaunsee County, Kansas v. Umbehr, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects independent contractors from termination of at-will government contracts in retaliation for the contractors' exercise of freedom of speech. The companion case, O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, extended the right of political association or the expression of political allegiance to independent contractors. Even though these holdings provide another basis for imposing governmental liability, there are actions that governments may take to limit their exposure to First Amendment liability. First, the termination of any contract by a government should be carefully scrutinized, and the reasons for such termination should be delineated and documented. Second, documentation of contract performance must be maintained in case it becomes necessary to show valid reasons for the termination of a contract. Third, the number of contracts that a government may terminate at will should be minimized. Fourth, governments should consider eliminating automatic contract renewals. Fifth, although State statutes uniformly require that governmental entities award contracts to either the lowest bidder, lowest responsible bidder, or lowest responsive bidder, the two cases reviewed may encourage more litigation when this mandated policy is not followed. Although the Court apparently is unwilling to extend its holding to bidders and applicants for new contracts, many government lawyers and experts believe it is a virtual certainty that these rulings will be applied to those entities as well. 27 footnotes