Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 9, 1994 TAG: 9411090073
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The justices voiced concerns that the 1989 ethics law that bans honoraria was too broadly written and violates free-speech rights, because it would affect activities having nothing to do with a federal worker's job.
Drawing on examples in a brief submitted by workers, justices noted that the law effectively bars compensation for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission lawyer who writes on Russian history, a mail handler who speaks about the Quaker religion and a labor lawyer who lectures on Judaism.
``These are civil servants,'' said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. ``They don't go around having thousands of freebies thrown at them.'' Breyer added it might be in government's interest to have federal workers write about their subjects of expertise.
All the justices, including Clarence Thomas, joined in the hourlong arguments. Thomas, who had not posed a question for more than a year, asked lawyer Gregory O'Duden, who represented federal employees, whether the government would be able to ban all moonlighting.
Thomas, who was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982 to 1990, said his employees often took after-hours jobs. He suggested that if Congress had tried to stop all outside employment of federal workers, rather than only speaking or writing engagements, it would not breach the First Amendment.
O'Duden agreed, saying a general anti-moonlighting statute that did not target speech activities would not have the same First Amendment problems.
About 3 million civilian employees would be covered by the honoraria ban, which has been suspended pending the outcome of litigation. The National Treasury Employees Union and other government workers challenged the law before it was to take effect in January 1991.
by CNB