Brian Davison v. Phyllis Randall
912 F.3d 666
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Phyllis Randall, Chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, created and administered a Facebook Page titled “Chair Phyllis J. Randall,” designated as a "governmental official" page and used to communicate official County information and solicit constituent comments.
- Brian Davison, a Loudoun resident active on school governance issues, commented on Randall’s post about a joint town-hall meeting alleging conflicts of interest by School Board members; Randall deleted the thread and temporarily banned Davison’s Facebook Page (Virginia SGP), then quickly unbanned it.
- Davison sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment viewpoint discrimination and a procedural due process violation; he sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court found Randall liable on the First Amendment claim (individual capacity) and denied the due process claim; it dismissed the Loudoun Board and Randall in her official capacity.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed (1) standing for prospective declaratory relief, (2) whether Randall acted under color of state law, (3) whether the interactive component of the Chair’s Facebook Page was a public forum and whether banning Davison was viewpoint discrimination, and (4) procedural rulings denying municipal claims and denying leave to amend.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: Davison had standing for prospective declaratory relief; Randall acted under color of state law; the interactive comment space was a public forum; Randall engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by banning Davison; the official-capacity/municipal claims and the late amendment to add a new county theory were properly rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for prospective declaratory relief | Davison intends to continue using the Chair’s Page and faces a credible threat of future bans based on past ban | No ongoing injury; past ban alone insufficient | Davison has relaxed First Amendment standing: intent to keep engaging + past ban and Randall’s statements support a credible threat; standing satisfied |
| Color of state law ( § 1983) | Randall’s creation, use, and trappings of the Page, and her exercise of banning power, are attributable to the state | Page is private or personal; actions were private conduct | Randall acted under color of state law: Page used to perform official duties, bore hallmarks of office, and banning arose from official-status-linked events |
| Forum analysis: is interactive component a public forum? | Chair’s Page was intentionally opened to ANY constituent to comment; compatible with expressive activity | Facebook is private property; whole Page is government speech | The interactive comment space is a public forum (designated/limited); government-speech analysis does not cover the interactive space |
| Viewpoint discrimination | Banning targeted Davison’s critical viewpoint about alleged official corruption | Action was content moderation to remove slanderous content, not viewpoint suppression | Randall’s ban was viewpoint discrimination (motivated to suppress criticism of officials) and thus unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (clarifying concrete injury requirement for standing)
- Babbitt v. Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (test for imminent injury—intent to engage in conduct + credible threat of enforcement)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (past enforcement can make future enforcement credible)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (framework for designated/limited public fora)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (government-speech doctrine and limits of forum analysis)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (internet/social media as an important place for exchange of views)
- Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516 (Fourth Circuit on state-action and viewpoint suppression by officials)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (definition of action under color of state law)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)