Hussey v. City of Cambridge
Case Snapshot
Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come to work for the government—and particularly not when they speak as private citizens outside the workplace. Yet governments across America have fired employees for expressing their political and especially religious views on important public issues to their own friends, on their own time. A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit doubled down on a dangerous exception, allowing public employers to punish off-duty speech they deem too “disparaging.” Becket is urging the full First Circuit to reject this precedent and protect government employees’ private speech, with special emphasis on safeguarding religious speech.
Status
Share this Case
Case Summary
Police veteran punished for a brief, private Facebook post
Brian Hussey has served as a police officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for over two decades. For years, he maintained a personal, private Facebook page—which did not identify him as a Cambridge police officer—where he shared comments or articles of personal interest. In February 2021, Hussey reposted a news headline about a federal police-reform bill named for George Floyd and added a short comment criticizing the decision to name the bill after Floyd. Of his own volition, he deleted the post within a few hours. But after the police department received a complaint about the post, it launched an investigation into Hussey, placed him on administrative leave for nearly two months, and ultimately suspended him for four days without pay.
Hussey’s story is part of a broader and accelerating trend of government employers punishing employees for their private speech, especially their religious speech. For example, former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired after publishing a Christian book in which he expressed his traditional religious views on human sexuality. Similarly, Dr. Andrew Fox, a former volunteer fire chaplain in Texas, lost his job after posting his religious view that men should not compete on women’s sports teams. And Dr. Eric Walsh, a health official and lay pastor in Georgia, was fired for the content of the sermons he preached for his Seventh-day Adventist Church on the weekends.
A dangerous exception that invites governmental muzzling of unpopular speech
Hussey filed a lawsuit against the City of Cambridge, arguing that the City had violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for his speech. A trial court dismissed his lawsuit. On appeal, a divided panel of the First Circuit also ruled against Hussey. The court concluded that his speech “touched on important political issues,” and acknowledged that “normally” this kind ofspeech is entitled to heightened legal protection. But it nonetheless ruled that Hussey’s speech did not qualify for that protection because it was “mocking, derogatory, and disparaging.” Hussey successfully asked the full First Circuit to rehear his case, and the court granted en banc review.
Becket urges the full First Circuit to protect core speech
If allowed to stand, the panel’s anti-disparagement standard would create a slippery slope, giving governments across the political spectrum vast discretion to silence employee speech they dislikeor find politically inconvenient. One administration might use it to silence criticism of a sitting president or advocacy for gun rights. Another might use it to punish pro-life advocacy or traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality.
On February 25, 2026, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Hussey. The brief explains that the anti-disparagement standard would leave religious government employees particularly vulnerable. Many religious believers hold views that differ from the prevailing social consensus on deeply contested issues, and critics seeking to suppress those views routinely label them “disparaging” and offensive. That pattern is not new. In Anglo-American history, government suppression of speech has repeatedly and disproportionally targeted religious speech, which is why religious speech has long been treated as core speech and given the strongest protection. Becket is asking the full court to reaffirm that speech does not lose protection simply because the speaker works for the government and speaks as a private citizen outside the workplace.
Becket has repeatedly defended the right of free expression and freedom of assembly before the appellate courts and the Supreme Court, including in 303 Creative v. Elenis, Heffernan v. City of Paterson, and Matal v. Tam.
Importance to religious liberty:
- Free speech: The First Amendment protects our right to speak freely on issues without fear of government censorship or punishment, even when, and especially when, that view is unpopular.
- Individual freedom: Religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their faith at all times, including in the workplace.