Michael P. Brannon, a forensic psychologist who consulted for the Broward County Public Defender’s Office, sued Public Defender Howard Finkelstein after his referrals declined and he was removed from the office’s expert-witness rotation. Brannon alleged that Finkelstein retaliated against him for testimony favorable to a Florida judge under investigation and for criticism of the office’s later rotation system. The district court granted summary judgment to Finkelstein and separately granted him qualified immunity in his individual capacity. The Eleventh Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the reduction in Brannon’s work and his removal from the rotation adverse actions caused in part by his protected testimony, despite simultaneous budget reductions and evidence that Brannon’s share of the expert budget remained stable. It therefore vacated summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The Court affirmed qualified immunity because the mixed-motive, fact-specific Pickering and causation questions did not establish a violation of clearly established law. The Court also rejected Brannon’s argument that his criticism of office policies could not be considered because it was provoked. The judgment was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.