On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a lawsuit filed by a former court clerk from New Lebanon, New York, who alleges she was wrongfully terminated for her cooperation in an investigation into judicial misconduct. Samantha Long, the plaintiff, claims her dismissal was a direct retaliation for her involvement with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s inquiry into Judge Jessica Byrne.
Long’s lawsuit centers on her assertion that she was fired after providing case files to investigators and subsequently refusing to discuss the ongoing investigation with Judge Byrne. The allegations against Byrne include improper interventions in cases involving family members and disclosing confidential information to local officials. In July 2024, Byrne resigned from her judicial position, agreeing not to seek future judicial office.
Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed in November 2024 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The court ruled that Long’s actions were not protected under the First Amendment, as they were deemed part of her official duties as a court clerk. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Long’s claims under New York’s whistleblower laws.
However, the Second Circuit overturned this decision, determining that Long’s refusal to engage in discussions about the misconduct investigation was outside the scope of her official responsibilities and constituted protected speech. The court’s ruling referenced the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which clarified that public employees are not protected by the First Amendment when their speech is made as part of their job duties.
In its analysis, the Second Circuit highlighted that Long’s actions were motivated by a civic duty to comply with the law rather than her professional obligations as a court clerk. The court drew a contrast to its 2011 ruling in Anemone v. MTA, where a public employee’s disclosures to investigators were found to be within the scope of his professional responsibilities.
The court’s decision mandates further proceedings on both the federal constitutional claim and the state whistleblower claim. This ruling is significant as it provides clear guidance for public employees who cooperate with investigations into misconduct, emphasizing that such cooperation may be recognized as protected speech if it falls outside their regular job duties.
