Flynn v. Big Spring Sch. Dist., No. 1:22-CV-00961, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168913, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 19, 2024) (District Court permits Plaintiffs who were regular attendants at school board meetings to move forward with First Amendment and Procedural Due Process Claims after being issued no-trespass letters for holding signs critical of the District and its policies during school board meetings).
BACKGROUND:
Lawrence Flynn and Ariene Reinford (“Plaintiffs”) were residents of Big Spring School District (“the District”). Plaintiffs regularly attended District School Board meetings, provided public comment at those meetings, and held signs critical of District policies and decisions. At one school board meeting, the Plaintiffs provided public comment, Reinford placed a sticker on a bathroom door,[1] and Flynn held up a sign critical of the District’s use of taxpayer funds and COVID-19 policies. Flynn held the sign above his head and turned the sign around to face the camera, as the school board meetings were live streamed. The District had a Policy that restricted the use of signs and placards at Board meetings (“Policy 903”), so the Board President enforced Policy 903 and asked Flynn to lower his sign because it was obstructing the view of other attendees. Other school board members commented that Flynn should lower his sign was because it was distracting and because the message on the sign was factually inaccurate.
A few days after the meeting, the Plaintiffs received no-trespass letters from the District’s superintendent indicating that they were banned from attending school board meetings in person. The District live streamed its meetings, so Plaintiffs were able to virtually watch the school board meetings. Additionally, more than thirty (30) days after the no-trespass letters were in effect, the District permitted the Plaintiffs to submit public comments via email to the District superintendent and the school board members, wherein the comments would be read out loud and included in the official meeting minutes. During the time the no-trespass letters were in effect, the Plaintiffs did not submit public comment. However, Plaintiffs did communicate with the District about other matters. The no-trespass letters were in effect for six (6) months but were eventually rescinded.
Plaintiffs then filed this suit against the District alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court granted partial summary judgment to the District and dismissed one (1) out of five (5) of Plaintiffs’ claims.
DISCUSSION:
The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims challenging the constitutionality of Policy 903 as it applied to Reinford but refused to dismiss the claim as it applied to Flynn. The Court acknowledged that a school board meeting is a limited public forum where the government may restrict the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are reasonable and serve the purpose for which the government created the limited public forum. However, while the District claimed the purpose of Policy 903 was to keep order during meetings and prevent distractions and obstructed views, there was an issue of material fact as to whether the policy was unconstitutional as applied to Flynn because it appeared that the Policy was used to restrict the content of his speech rather than the time, place, and manner of his speech.
The District Court also refused to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The First Amendment right to free speech includes not only the affirmative right to speak, but also the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right. To bring a claim, under Section 1983, for First Amendment retaliation, the plaintiff must prove (1) that he engaged in First Amendment-protected activity, (2) that the defendant’s allegedly retaliatory action was sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the retaliatory action.
The Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs were engaged in protected First Amendment activity when they provided public comment and held signs critical of the District at the school board meeting; that the District’s issuance of no-trespass letters to the Plaintiffs appeared to be causally connected to Plaintiff’s protected First Amendment activity at the school board meeting; and that issuing no-trespass letters would effectively deter a reasonable person from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Further, the Court refused to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim that the District’s decision to ban them from attending in-person school board meetings violated their First Amendment right to petition. The right to petition the government is one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and is essential to the ideal of a republican government as it permits the “public airing of disputes, the evolution of the law, and the use of government as an alternative to force.” While the Court did not analyze the merits of the District’s argument that the Plaintiffs were still able to effectively participate in the meetings by submitting public comment electronically and live streaming the school board meetings, it determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact that allowed the Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed at this stage of litigation.
Plaintiffs also argued that their procedural due process rights were violated when they were banned from attending school board meetings in person. While the District argued that there was not a due process issue because it permitted Plaintiffs to submit public comment to the superintendent and school board members via email, the Court pointed out that the Plaintiffs were not provided with a mechanism to challenge their bans until at least thirty (30) days after they received the no-trespass letters. Accordingly, the Court refused to dismiss Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims.
PRACTICAL ADVICE:
School Districts can restrict the time, place, and manner of speech at school board meetings by adopting reasonable policies to ensure public meetings run efficiently and effectively. Districts can also remove citizens from public meetings for disruptive or threatening conduct. However, Districts should not remove or ban citizens from attending public meetings solely due to the content of their speech, which, as demonstrated in Flynn, can include signs that are critical of District policies or decisions.
[1] The Court did not have information related to the writing and/or content on the sticker.
