[ceejayoz]

This one'd probably hinge on whether the comment was "made pursuant to the employee's job duties". In chronological order:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v._Board_of_Educatio... establishes a "right to speak on issues of public importance" for public employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos limits that right when statements are "made pursuant to his position as a public employee".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin extends "First Amendment protection to professors at public universities for on-the-job speech that deals with public issues related to teaching or scholarship, whether inside or outside of the classroom", but doesn't apply everywhere as it's a Ninth Circuit decision.

[bachmeier]

I'd be interested to hear how this could fall under the second classification. The professor in this case wasn't even working directly with the politician.

[ceejayoz]

You can be a public employee without being a direct report to the Governor.

[bachmeier]

Well I get that, but I'm curious what would be the "government employees' work product" in this case, using the Supreme Court's chosen phrase. The case you linked is about someone doing their job in a way that his bosses thought was wrong. It just happened to involved speech. I don't see the connection to this case. To the extent that the criticism of the politician was related to that person's work duties, it's because they're paid by a public university to share opinions related to their expertise.

[ceejayoz]

The work product of a state university professor is, in part, their lectures.

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demers_v._Austin has it right in this regard - that public educators have a specific First Amendment need/exception to be able to teach facts their chain of command doesn't appreciate - but it doesn't yet apply in Texas.