Jim Barrett v. Walker County School District
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19012
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Barrett, a Walker County public-school teacher and president of the local teachers’ association, sought to speak at Board meetings criticizing a Superintendent-implemented grading policy; the Board enforces a written "Policy" and Superintendent-promulgated "Procedures" governing who may speak.
- The Policy requires a prospective speaker to meet with the Superintendent first; after any investigation/report-back, the speaker must submit a written request at least one week before the Board meeting. The Policy contains no deadline for scheduling the initial meeting.
- Barrett timely requested the initial meeting but the Superintendent scheduled meetings and responses in a way that made Barrett ineligible to speak at a particular February meeting; Barrett alleges the scheduling was used to suppress critical viewpoints.
- Barrett filed suit asserting First Amendment facial and as-applied claims; the district court granted partial summary judgment for Barrett on facial claims, finding the Policy gave the Superintendent unbridled discretion and enjoined enforcement; other claims remained for discovery.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part (facial unbridled-discretion claim), vacated summary judgment as to other claims, held Barrett had standing to pursue the facial challenge, and remanded for narrowing the injunction to the constitutional defect (no time limit for the initial meeting).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring a facial unbridled-discretion challenge | Barrett had applied before and intends to apply again; existence of an unbridled scheme injures him without needing a denial first | Defendants implied more developed facts were required before a facial challenge | Barrett has standing—past and future applications subject him to the Policy and that exposure suffices to challenge facially (affirmed) |
| Whether the Policy grants unbridled discretion via lack of time limit for the initial meeting | The Policy leaves scheduling of the mandatory initial meeting to Superintendent with no deadline, enabling viewpoint-based delay and censorship | Defendants argued the Policy is not a prior restraint, and the second meeting (report-back) has a time limit so no unbridled discretion exists | The court held the lack of any time limit on scheduling the initial meeting grants unconstitutional unbridled discretion; summary judgment for Barrett on that facial claim affirmed |
| Applicability of prior-restraint / forum analysis (content-based vs content-neutral) | Barrett argued the meeting requirement operates as a prior restraint and is effectively content based because administrators can infer or learn speakers’ topics | Defendants argued the Policy is not a prior restraint and that unbridled-discretion doctrine does not apply in limited public fora | Court treated the comment sessions as a limited public forum but found the Policy a prior restraint and sufficiently content-based in practice (risk of viewpoint discrimination), so lack of time limit is fatal under Granite State framework |
| Remedy and scope of injunction; procedural issues (extension of time for discovery) | Barrett sought permanent injunction against enforcement; moved for summary judgment on facial issues before discovery | Defendants sought extension to respond after discovery; argued injunction unnecessarily disrupted forums | Permanent injunction was appropriate for the specific constitutional defect (must impose a reasonable time limit for initial meeting scheduling); district court did not abuse discretion in denying extension because the facial issue was legal and resolvable without further discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) (facial challenge appropriate where a licensing scheme vests unbridled discretion)
- Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, 348 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2003) (framework for prior restraints lacking time limits; analysis differs for content-based vs content-neutral restraints)
- Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (time limits and adequate standards required to cabin administrative discretion in prior-restraint regimes)
- Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Atlanta Dep’t of Aviation, 322 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2003) (unbridled discretion doctrine applied to official regulating access in an airport forum; risk of viewpoint discrimination)
- Café Erotica of Florida, Inc. v. St. Johns County, 360 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2004) (prior-restraint analysis applied to sign-permitting scheme; practical inferences can make a scheme content-based)
- Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) (limited public forum rules: government may restrict content but not viewpoint; restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (test for permanent injunctions)