Hussey v. City of Cambridge

On February 25, 2026, we filed an amicus brief urging the federal First Circuit appeals court to apply the correct test to determine if a public employee's comments are protected by the First Amendment. The brief does not take a position on the ultimate outcome of whether the speech was protected, but seeks to ensure the proper test is applied to determine the ultimate outcome.

This case raises important questions about how the First Amendment rights of public employees are evaluated. Our brief requests that the en banc First Circuit appeals court hold that “mocking, derogatory, or disparaging” messages do not receive less First Amendment weight than other free speech on matters of public concern.

The friend-of-the-court brief was filed in Hussey v. City of Cambridge by the ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Rhode Island, ACLU of Puerto Rico, and the national ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.

In the brief, we’re asking the appeals court to have the trial court reexamine the case by applying the correct standard. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the controversial or offensive character of speech on public issues is irrelevant to the weight of its First Amendment value. In cases like this one, the only proper place for the court to consider the character of the speech is in its fact-based analysis of whether the speech threatened to disrupt the workplace and undermine the provision of public services.

If courts allow government employers to punish employees’ political speech just because it is vulgar or offensive, the First Amendment rights of public employees will depend on subjective codes of etiquette and standards of good taste. That kind of government thumb on the scale of public discourse is anathema to the principles of free speech we all depend on, and that is exactly why we are asking that the court apply the proper standard to this case.