Denis Navratil v. City of Racine, 101 F.4th 511

Denis Navratil attended an anti-COVID restriction rally at the Wisconsin Capitol in April 2020, contrary to both a statewide order prohibiting large gatherings and a denied event permit.
The City of Racine created an emergency grant program for small businesses economically impacted by pandemic shutdowns, with the mayor holding final discretion on awards.
Dimple’s LLC (owned by Dimple Navratil, Denis’s wife) applied and was denied twice for emergency funds, with the second denial occurring after Denis’s televised participation at the rally.
Mayor Cory Mason publicly stated that Denis’s attendance at the rally, which violated public health orders, influenced the grant denial.
Plaintiffs sued the City and Mayor Mason, asserting First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Defamation claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City and Mayor Mason on all remaining claims, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment Retaliation	Denis’s rally attendance was protected speech; denial was retaliation.	Attendance was not protected because the rally violated valid orders.	Attendance at the rally was not protected activity; claim fails.
Equal Protection	Grant denial was politically motivated or discriminatory.	Denial was because of violation of public health order, not animus.	No evidence of political animus; rational basis for denial.
Due Process	Denial deprived business of protected property/liberty interests.	No protected interest; grant was discretionary and limited.	No protected property/liberty interest; claim fails.
Defamation	Mayor’s statements falsely harmed Denis’s reputation.	Statements were substantially true or opinion, not actionable.	Statements not actionable; summary judgment affirmed.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open alternatives)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property interests for due process require more than discretion or an abstract need)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: dispute must be genuine and material)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on expressive activity)
Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316 (permits for expressive events as valid time, place, and manner restrictions)
Heffron v. Int'l Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (First Amendment activity subject to reasonable restrictions)
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (expressive conduct as First Amendment-protected speech)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process: only most egregious conduct shocks the conscience)
Laughland v. Beckett, 2015 WI App 70 (elements of defamation under Wisconsin law)