( CNN ) -- An Alabama man who says he was fired for exposing public corruption received broad support from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a free-speech dispute testing workplace protections for government employees . In hour-long oral arguments , the justices dug into a case of whether such First Amendment rights extend to state workers who testify truthfully at trial , but are later punished by their employer . `` Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work , '' said Justice Elena Kagan . `` In other words , expecting that people will know things because they work in a place and that they can take what they know as a result of working '' in the public sphere , and say so when subpoenaed . '' A ruling in favor of the man at the center of the legal fight , Edward Lane , could make it easier for prosecutors to pursue official public corruption allegations where the cooperation of government workers is often a key factor . In 2006 , Lane was directing a state-funded training program to help at-risk youth , coordinated through Central Alabama Community College . An audit he performed found someone on the payroll was not showing up for work and had done virtually nothing for the program . But this was no ordinary employee : Sue Schmitz was also an Alabama state legislator . Lane says he tried to work with Schmitz to perform her job duties . But he alleged she threatened him , and said he was cautioned by colleagues not to confront someone with her political influence . Nevertheless , Lane fired her . The FBI stepped in and began a separate criminal investigation , looking at how Schmitz , 69 , was able to secure the community relations job with the program . She was paid $ 177,251 from February 2003 to October 2006 . Federal prosecutors charged the retired teacher with fraud . She was convicted , received a 30-month prison term , and was forced to resign from office . Lane was later terminated from his government job , prompting him to sue the college president . At arguments , Lane 's lawyer , Tejinder Singh , told the justices that his client `` testified about events '' that he learned about at work . `` The testimony itself was not a part of his job responsibilities . '' It amounted to someone speaking as `` a citizen on a matter of public concern . '' But several justices questioned whether the law was clear at the time of the firing to hold the college president liable for damages . And some justices wondered whether a public official should enjoy broad job security when testifying in court . `` So what happens in a situation where a police officer gets on the stand and in testifying honestly admits to corruption , but does it in a slovenly way , comes to court dressed in a clown suit ? '' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor . `` Could the employer fire him then ? '' Yet it was the attorneys for the college presidents who received the toughest questioning . They said government workers do not deserve the `` full free speech rights '' enjoyed by others . `` That seems counterintuitive to me . Why do we put people at risk for telling the truth ? '' asked Sotomayor again . `` To tell the truth about something ? And I 'm assuming if they lied , they could be fired . '' Chief Justice John Roberts said Lane had no choice but to testify as ordered . `` What 's he supposed to do ? He says , 'gosh , if I answer , I 'm going to lose my job , or could and if I do n't , or answer falsely ' '' he could in turn be prosecuted by the government , said Roberts . `` But you are suggesting he can be fired if he does it . '' The Supreme Court has previously said such workers can not sue over an adverse job action such as a firing or disciplinary action , when speaking on facts learned `` pursuant to their official duties . '' They can only make such claims when they speak as a private citizen . But oral arguments revealed the court was likely to carve exceptions for employees compelled to testify under oath about matters of public concern . The case is Lane v. Franks ( 13-483 ) . A ruling is expected by early summer .
Case involves man working at Alabama college who says he was fired for exposing corruption . Do First Amendment rights extend to state workers who testify truthfully but are later punished ? Court has previously said such workers can not sue over an adverse job action in certain cases .