Moonin v. Tice

Nevada Highway Patrol K9 troopers Matt Moonin, Donn Yarnall, and Erik Lee retained Mr. McKenna after Major Kevin Tice issued an email directive that banned K9 officers from discussing the K9 program with anyone outside the department. The directive was a categorical prohibition — neither tethered to any specific operational concern nor limited to confidential information.

Mr. McKenna filed a thirteen-count federal complaint in the District of Nevada. The core theory was First Amendment prior restraint, with pendent claims for retaliation, Fourth Amendment violations, civil RICO, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1), defamation, and fraud. In 2015, District Judge Larry Hicks denied Major Tice qualified immunity, finding that the email was an unconstitutional prior restraint on public-employee speech.

The defendants appealed. Mr. McKenna argued the Ninth Circuit appeal in 2017 before a panel of Circuit Judges Berzon and Murguia, joined by District Judge Frederic Block sitting by designation. The panel affirmed, holding that a “robust consensus” of prior Ninth Circuit cases had clearly established that a public employer may not impose a categorical ban on employee speech about a government program — whether fact or opinion, and whether or not the speech is disruptive. Moonin v. Tice, 868 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017).

Lead counsel from complaint through Ninth Circuit argument. Mr. McKenna drafted the thirteen-count complaint, carried the qualified-immunity motion practice before Judge Hicks, and delivered the Ninth Circuit oral argument for the plaintiffs-appellees.