CAMPBELL v. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:24-cv-00975
| M.D.N.C. | Mar 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff James Campbell spoke at the Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners meeting in April 2024, raising criticisms about Department of Social Services (DSS) employees by name.
- Board members interrupted both Campbell and another citizen for naming county employees, citing a Board policy against personal attacks and naming names.
- Campbell protested the rule, requested the written policy, but was instead ejected from the meeting for not complying.
- Campbell filed suit, alleging First Amendment violations related to the enforcement of the policy and his subsequent exclusion from meetings.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming the policy is constitutional and that Campbell was never formally banned from meetings.
- The court considered video footage from the meeting as part of the record on the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board's "no personal attacks/naming" Policy unconstitutional under the First Amendment? | The policy is an improper content-based restriction and is arbitrarily enforced. | The policy is a constitutional, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a limited public forum. | DENIED dismissal; claims survive—potential arbitrary enforcement. |
| Was Campbell banned from attending Board meetings in violation of his First Amendment rights? | He believed he was banned due to statements and the circumstances of removal. | He was never actually banned; he was only asked to leave to read the policy. | GRANTED dismissal; no factual support for an actual ban. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Davison v. Rose, 19 F.4th 626 (upholding personal attack policies in limited public forums)
- Steinburg v. Chesterfield Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 527 F.3d 377 (upholding similar policies; distinguishes attacks relevant to official duties)
- Child Evangelism Fellowship of Md., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Sch., 457 F.3d 376 (arbitrary application of speech restrictions violates the First Amendment)