The potential for future damage to the constitution by the Roberts court is becoming clear. In a very upsetting 5-4 split, the Roberts court has decided against first-amendment protection for whistleblowers. Goodbye accountability in government.

The ruling affects only constitutional free-speech claims related to work, the court said, not the rights of public employees off the job. Nor does it affect state and federal labor laws or whistle-blower protection statutes, the court said.

In his opinion for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that those "powerful" rules still "provide checks" on supervisors.

"We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy wrote. "Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job."

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But Kennedy's opinion drew a sharp dissent from Justice David H. Souter, who argued that statutory and other protections for whistle-blowers are weak. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Souter. Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented in a solo opinion.

If O'Connor were still on the court, this would have been decided differently. Very sad. Personally, I think if a Sheriff lied to obtain a warrant the DA has a perfectly legitimate right to say, "hey, this guy lied in the pursuance of his public duties." I think this case is a real loser. What do my lawyers think?