CINCINNATI (CN) - A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday rebuffed an education advocacy group's challenge to a Tennessee school board's speech restrictions, determining the board's voluntary removal of problematic rules quells any free speech concerns.
Moms for Liberty, a "parental empowerment" nonprofit group, sued the Wilson County Board of Education after several parents voiced concerns about procedural rules at board meetings that required speakers to disclose their address and forbid any "abusive comments."
Additionally, a "relevancy" requirement prevented any public comment that was unrelated to the meeting's agenda.
U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, denied the nonprofit group's motion for a preliminary injunction in January 2024, shortly after the board removed the address disclosure and abusive comment rules from its official meeting policy.
An appeal to the Sixth Circuit followed, and the case was argued before a three-judge panel in October 2024. The panel considered the merits of the First Amendment claims related to the address disclosure and abusive comment provisions, but ultimately ruled in favor of the school board.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch emphasized in Tuesday's opinion that moderators no longer cite either provision before board meetings, and that all references to the provisions have been removed from official policy documents.
She also pointed out the relevancy requirement only comes into play when an individual attempts to speak at a board meeting without first seeking to be added to the agenda beforehand.
The panel agreed with Richardson that the board's actions prevent Moms for Liberty from showing a threat of imminent or irreparable harm, spoiling the group's push for a preliminary injunction.
As for the threat of the board reinstating problematic rules, the panel found it a remote possibility at best.
"For one, the board rescinded the rules over two years ago and has not reinstated them since. For another, the board's attorney at oral argument committed the board will not reinstitute the challenged rules during the pendency of the litigation. Such a representation binds the board," said Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee.
U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, an appointee of Donald Trump, wrote a concurring opinion to express concerns about the "troubling nature of the board's rules."
Thapar agreed Moms for Liberty is not entitled to a preliminary injunction, but said the board's abusive comment restriction is tantamount to government censorship and an attempt to "implement a 'happy-talk' requirement" that would be unconstitutional.
He was equally disenchanted with the now-rescinded address disclosure requirement.
"Forcing commenters to disclose their home addresses before speaking on controversial or hot-button issues seems particularly likely to silence a would-be speaker," Thapar said.
"At time when many parents are disengaging from public education, those parents who put in the effort to advocate for the wellbeing of their children - and their neighbors' children - should be celebrated, not silenced. After all, what's the point of the meeting if only positive comments are welcome? The First Amendment protects the critic and the champion equally for a reason," he concluded.
U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, another Trump appointee, rounded out the panel.
Neither party immediately responded to requests for comment.
Source: Courthouse News Service
