3:24-cv-10052
D.N.J.Jul 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Forchion (“Forchion”), a known cannabis activist, and his business NJWeedman’s Joint LLC (“The Joint”), sued Reed Gusciora in his official capacity as Mayor of Trenton, NJ.
- The Joint, a restaurant located across from Trenton City Hall, was subject to police enforcement actions including late-night shutdowns for allegedly violating operating hour ordinances.
- Forchion projected a large, critical message (“Our City Government SUCKS”) on City Hall after unsuccessfully trying to obtain a cannabis license, allegedly triggering increased police scrutiny.
- Plaintiffs claim selective and retaliatory enforcement: they argue The Joint was inconsistently cited, denied a straightforward license amendment, and was treated differently than similar businesses.
- In response to these events, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and other relief.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Plaintiffs’ actions constituted unprotected harassment and that the lawsuit promotes illegal cannabis activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Plaintiffs’ critical projection on City Hall protected speech? | Forchion’s message was core political speech critical of government and protected by the First Amendment. | The projection was harassment, not protected speech, and violates NJ’s harassment statute. | The speech was protected under the First Amendment; the projection was not harassment or otherwise unprotected. |
| Did Plaintiffs plausibly plead municipal retaliation under §1983? | Police actions and threats occurred only after protected speech, suggesting a causal connection. | No plausible retaliation as Plaintiffs acted unlawfully and police were following ordinances. | Plaintiffs plausibly pled a retaliation claim; complaint survives dismissal. |
| Should the complaint be dismissed due to alleged illegal cannabis activity? | No evidence of illegal cannabis sales or that case furthers illegal conduct; cannabis application was pending. | Plaintiffs sought aid of the court to further illegal activity, which is not permitted. | No cause shown to dismiss under this doctrine; the issue is not relevant here. |
| Are attorney’s fees a proper standalone cause of action? | Plaintiffs sought them as a separate count. | Not a proper standalone claim. | Dismissed Count II; fees to be sought post-trial per Rule 54. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (stating the plausibility standard for survival under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468 (2022) (retaliatory action forbidden for protected speech under First Amendment)
- Saxe v. State College Area School Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (no categorical harassment exception to First Amendment; most offensive speech is protected)
- Conard v. Pennsylvania State Police, 902 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2018) (retaliatory threats/actions can amount to First Amendment retaliation)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (government may regulate time, place, and manner of speech on its property, but not discriminate based on viewpoint)