09-1454, pp. 41-44, Brief for Petitioner in No. 09-1478, p. 4, n. 1, Reply Brief for Petitioner in No. 09-1454, pp. 3-13, Reply Brief for Petitioner in No. 09-1478, pp. 5-6, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11-20, and Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-14, 17-24, 54-58, with Brief for Respondent 24-42 and Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-31, 46-52. 9 The same cannot be said for Deputy Sheriff Alford. In their briefs, the parties informed us that Alford no longer works for Deschutes County or in law enforcement. See Brief for Respondent 1, n. 2; Reply Brief for Petitioner in No. 09-1478. Because Alford will not again participate in a child abuse investigation, he has lost his interest in the Fourth Amendment ruling. See supra, at 702-703; cf. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43,67 (1997) (<HOLDING>). But in light of Camreta’s continuing stake,
holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that the plaintiffs challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge holding that a state of permanence was reached when the citys only response to plaintiffs complaint about the loss of job duties was to give her the opportunity to transfer out of the department holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties