Brian Davison v. Deborah Rose
19 F.4th 626
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Brian Davison, a Loudoun County parent, publicly criticized LCPS and individual school-board members after obtaining Student Growth Percentile data; tensions escalated between 2014–2016.
- In Sept–Oct 2015 school officials (including Principal Stephens) issued no-trespass letters barring Davison from school property, certain events, and parent drop-off/pick-up without permission; letters cited disruptive conduct, alleged threatening language, and involvement of Davison’s children in flyer distribution.
- Teachers reported concerns about the children’s welfare; Stephens (a mandatory reporter) contacted CPS on Oct 27, 2015; CPS later closed the investigation without action.
- Davison sued in state court to challenge the bans, then filed a federal § 1983 action (May 2016) against the Loudoun County School Board (LCSB) and several officials asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment claims; the state petition was dismissed with prejudice.
- The district court dismissed many claims on res judicata and qualified-immunity grounds and granted summary judgment for defendants on remaining claims; Davison appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata bars LCSB official-capacity claims | Davison contends state dismissal did not preclude federal claims and attempted an England reservation | State-court dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication; England reservation inapplicable because there was no Pullman abstention and Davison voluntarily dismissed | Affirmed: res judicata precludes claims against LCSB in official capacity |
| First Amendment censorship at school-board meetings (Rose & Hornberger) | Warnings/interruption of Davison’s podium remarks were viewpoint-based censorship of protected speech | Board policy limiting personal attacks is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in a limited public forum | Affirmed: no violation—policy constitutional; interruptions enforced neutrally |
| First Amendment retaliation re: no-trespass letters | Davison says bans and other actions were retaliatory for his speech | No-trespass letters were issued for disruptive, threatening conduct and after multiple complaints; causation not shown | Affirmed: no retaliation—insufficient causal link between protected speech and bans |
| CPS referral and reporter immunity | Stephens referred to CPS as retaliation; referral was allegedly frivolous/malicious | Stephens was a mandatory reporter who received teacher reports and followed statutory duty; Virginia statute grants immunity absent bad faith/malice | Affirmed: Stephens entitled to statutory immunity; Davison failed to show bad faith or malice |
| Qualified immunity for no-trespass bans and injunctive relief re Policy 6310 | Davison argues bans and the blanket Policy 6310 violated clearly established rights and seek narrow tailoring | Officials reasonably relied on precedent (e.g., Lovern) and multiple reviews; Policy 6310 applies uniformly; injunctive relief unnecessary if bans are constitutional | Affirmed: defendants entitled to qualified immunity for damages; prospective injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (framework for evaluating speech and public fora)
- Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (limited public forum principles and viewpoint discrimination)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (viewpoint discrimination forbidden in limited forums)
- Steinburg v. Chesterfield Cnty. Plan. Comm’n, 527 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. standard upholding personal-attack limits at public meetings)
- Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. upholding school-property ban for repeated threatening/disruptive parent; qualified immunity guidance)
- Wolf v. Fauquier Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 555 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. on reporter immunity and policy favoring child-protection reports)
- Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. qualified immunity two-step)
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. elements of First Amendment retaliation)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (Pullman/claim-preclusion context)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (student removal and post-deprivation due process principles)