In October 2024, LCW published a summary of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Adams v. County of Sacramento, a case involving Kate Adams, the former Chief of Police for the City of Rancho Cordova. On July 9, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion clarifying its reasoning but leaving the outcome unchanged.
In 2013, Adams received two unsolicited text messages containing racist images. She forwarded the images to two coworkers during a casual text message exchange, adding, “Some rude racist just sent this!!” One coworker responded, “That’s not right.” The messages remained private and did not circulate beyond their original recipients.
Adams’s relationship with the two coworkers later deteriorated. In 2020, after Adams reported one of the coworkers for misconduct, that individual disclosed the 2013 messages during an internal investigation. According to Adams’s complaint, the County told her that if she did not resign, the investigation would become public and could lead to media coverage portraying her as a racist. She resigned in 2021. Adams later sued the County and the Sheriff in federal court, asserting several claims, including First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy. The district court dismissed the free speech claims, finding that the texts did not address a matter of public concern. Adams appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the free speech claims. It held that Adams’s speech was personal in nature and not protected under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit applied the Pickering framework and concluded that Adams did not speak on a matter of public concern. It emphasized that she expressed private frustration in a nonpublic context, and that her messages lacked any connection to public discourse, government policy, or misconduct. A detailed summary of that decision can be viewed here.
The recently issued amended opinion reaffirms the original holding and denies rehearing and rehearing en banc, ordering that no further petitions will be considered in this interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings on claims not at issue in the appeal.
The Ninth Circuit’s amended opinion expands the court’s analysis. It applies the Pickering test in greater detail, examining the content, form, and context of Adams’s speech. It found that Adams expressed personal exasperation at receiving offensive material, not a broader viewpoint on public issues. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that Adams sent the messages privately to two coworkers in a casual, social conversation. It distinguished this case from others involving public or policy-related speech and concluded that Adams’s messages did not qualify for constitutional protection.
While amended opinion does not alter the outcome, it clarifies and reinforces the legal standard. The decision affirms that to receive First Amendment protection, a public employee’s speech must address a matter of public concern in both substance and intent. Private expressions of personal frustration, even about offensive subject matter, do not meet that threshold.
Adams v. Cnty. of Sacramento (9th Cir. July 9, 2025, No. 23-15970) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17031.