L. F. v. Lake Washington Sch. Dist. 414, 947 F.3d 621

L.F., a divorced father, repeatedly communicated with Lake Washington School District staff about his daughters’ alleged anxiety/behavioral disorders and perceived discrimination as a parent.
District staff described L.F.’s communications (emails and in-person) beginning in March 2015 as excessive, intimidating, and time-consuming; after a November 2015 Section 504 meeting denied accommodations, exchanges escalated.
On November 23, 2015 the District imposed a "Communication Plan" limiting substantive communications to bi‑weekly in‑person meetings with two administrators, instructing staff not to respond to other contacts; exceptions included emergencies, appeals, access to records, and school events.
The District found L.F. violated the Plan in January 2016 (extended conversation at a teacher meeting and direct contacts at another school), reduced meetings from bi‑weekly to monthly, and later refused further modifications.
L.F. sued in March 2017 asserting (1) § 1983 First Amendment violation, (2) Rehabilitation Act retaliation, and (3) WLAD discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment to the District on all claims; L.F. appealed the § 1983 decision.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the Plan regulated which communications the District would respond to (not L.F.’s right to speak), and alternatively was a reasonable, viewpoint‑neutral restriction in a non‑public forum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Communication Plan burdened L.F.’s First Amendment right to speak and petition	Plan effectively prohibited contact with teachers/staff and chilled his speech and ability to challenge decisions	Plan only limited channels the District would respond to; it did not prohibit L.F. from speaking or appealing	Plan did not burden speech because it regulated District’s responsiveness; alternatively valid time/place/manner restriction in a non‑public forum
Whether the district court erred at summary judgment by crediting District evidence	District viewed facts in movant’s favor and ignored favorable facts for L.F.	District’s undisputed evidence and internal communications do not create a genuine dispute; Plan’s terms ask but do not require L.F. to comply	No reversible error: court may consider undisputed movant evidence; no genuine factual dispute that Plan regulated District response
Whether school/email systems or classrooms are public fora requiring strict scrutiny	Plan transformed District channels into a public or designated forum; email system used for public contact	School facilities/email are not opened for public expressive use; property is a non‑public forum	Facilities/email are non‑public fora; regulations need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral; Plan meets that standard

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (First Amendment applies to the states)
Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (no constitutional right to compel government to listen)
Smith v. Ark. State Highway Emps., Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463 (per curiam) (First Amendment does not impose an affirmative obligation to respond)
Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (non‑public forum analysis and reasonableness standard)
Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (school forum limitations and forum characterization)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (distinguishing forum types and forum‑creation principles)
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (public access alone does not create a public forum)
Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509 (summary judgment standard review in Ninth Circuit)