3 F.4th 887
6th Cir.2021Background
- After a 2016 school shooting, the Madison Local School Board adopted a resolution allowing staff to carry concealed weapons; community members (the Isons and Carolyn Patrick) regularly attended meetings to criticize the Board.
- The Board’s Public Participation Policy required in-person preregistration at least two business days before a meeting, limited speakers to Madison residents and three minutes, required addressing the presiding officer, and authorized the presiding officer to prohibit or interrupt comments that are "frivolous, repetitive, and/or harassing," and to stop statements that are "too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, off-topic, antagonistic, obscene, or irrelevant."
- In May 2018, Billy Ison was interrupted, warned, and escorted out after remarks criticizing the Board; he nonetheless spoke for just under three minutes. In January 2019, three speakers (Patrick, Abby, Sandra) were barred from speaking because they had not each submitted the required in-person form.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging facial and as-applied First Amendment violations (viewpoint discrimination, unconstitutional vagueness, and unlawful content-based enforcement). The district court granted summary judgment to the Board.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held the Policy’s restrictions on "abusive," "personally directed," and "antagonistic" speech are facially invalid (and invalid as applied to Billy), but upheld the in-person preregistration requirement and rejected the vagueness challenge to the presiding officer’s discretion to enforce "reasonable decorum."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial challenge to terms "abusive," "personally directed," "antagonistic" | Terms censor speech that offends or opposes the Board; therefore they are viewpoint-based and unconstitutional | Terms are content-neutral limits on harassment/abuse and permissible under Lowery | Terms are viewpoint-discriminatory under Matal/Iancu and invalid facially and as-applied (including Billy) |
| As-applied challenge re: Billy's removal (May 2018) | Billy was silenced for criticizing the Board, not for a true personal attack | Presiding officer acted to preserve decorum and prevent personal attacks | Application to Billy violated the First Amendment because enforcement tracked offensive/oppositional content |
| Preregistration requirement (in-person, 2 days) — facial and as-applied (Jan 2019) | In-person preregistration imposes burdens on working speakers and was enforced to suppress dissent | Requirement is a content-neutral time/place/manner rule that prevents no-shows and preserves meeting efficiency; alternatives exist (email, other forums) | Requirement is a valid time/place/manner restriction facially and was properly applied in Jan 2019 |
| Vagueness of presiding officer discretion ("reasonable decorum") | Phrases like "reasonable decorum" give officials unchecked, fluctuating discretion to silence dissent | "Reasonable decorum" is sufficiently definite under precedent and permits necessary meeting control | "Reasonable decorum" is not unconstitutionally vague; summary judgment for the Board affirmed on vagueness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (government may not ban trademarks or speech because they are offensive; "giving offense is a viewpoint")
- Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) (struck Lanham Act ban on "immoral or scandalous" marks as viewpoint discrimination)
- Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 978 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2020) (applied Matal/Iancu to invalidate content restrictions that disfavor disparaging viewpoints)
- Lowery v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 586 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2009) (upheld school board restrictions on frivolous/repetitive/harassing comments pre-Matal; distinguished here)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, manner test: narrowly tailored to significant government interest, leaving ample alternatives)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum analysis for government restrictions)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (limits on viewpoint discrimination in limited public forums)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video evidence is undisputed, courts view facts in light depicted by videotape)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (upheld time/place/manner restrictions where narrow tailoring and alternatives exist)