Bob Cajune v. ISD 194, 105 F.4th 1070

Following the death of George Floyd, teachers in School District 194 (the “District”) requested permission to display Black Lives Matter (BLM) posters in classrooms; this was initially denied citing District Policy 535, which bars political endorsements by staff.
In 2021, after community pressure, the District funded and permitted an "Inclusive Poster Series" including BLM messages, allowing teachers discretion to use the posters.
Requests to display “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” posters and to wear apparel with these slogans were denied, with the District asserting these phrases opposed and undermined BLM’s message.
Plaintiffs (both named and unnamed) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment violations based on viewpoint discrimination; unnamed plaintiffs sought to proceed under pseudonyms due to alleged fear of retaliation.
The district court dismissed the complaint, holding the posters were government speech not covered by the Free Speech Clause, and denied the use of pseudonyms due to insufficient showing of risk.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the pseudonym denial, reversed the dismissal on First Amendment grounds, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Proceed under pseudonyms	Fears of reprisal from local activists justify anonymity due to cancel culture risks	Anonymity not warranted; named plaintiffs litigated without incident	Denial of pseudonyms affirmed; risk insufficient
Nature of speech (government vs. private)	BLM posters were private speech; District only approved not created or dictated them	Posters were government speech: reviewed, funded, and approved by the District	Posters plausibly private speech; dismissal reversed
Existence of a limited public forum	Allowing BLM posters opened a limited public forum on school walls	District property is nonpublic by policy; no intent to open forum	Limited public forum created by inconsistent enforcement
Viewpoint discrimination	Denial of "All Lives Matter"/"Blue Lives Matter" was discriminatory after BLM allowed	District's restriction based on the opposing nature of these phrases to BLM	Viewpoint discrimination plausible; complaint reinstated

Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (government speech is not covered by First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (government cannot convert private speech to government speech by affixing approval)
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (government speech analysis and control factors)
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (prohibition of viewpoint discrimination in limited public forum)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (public forum doctrine and government property)