32 F.4th 707
9th Cir.2022Background
- Riley, principal shareholder of Riley’s American Heritage Farms (Riley’s Farm), made controversial tweets on his personal Twitter account unrelated to the school district or field trips.
- After parents complained about the tweets, Claremont Unified School District administrators canceled scheduled Riley’s Farm elementary field trips and issued guidance asking schools to find alternatives; dispute exists whether that guidance remains in effect.
- Riley and Riley’s Farm sued (42 U.S.C. § 1983) district officials and board members for First Amendment retaliation, seeking damages and injunctive relief to bar a continuing policy against future patronage.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the school defendants on damages (qualified immunity) and denied injunctive relief (concluding no ongoing policy), and denied plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit held a genuine dispute of material fact exists on whether the defendants retaliated in violation of the First Amendment and whether an ongoing policy exists, but concluded the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on damages because the right was not clearly established in the circumstances.
- The court affirmed qualified immunity for damages, reversed dismissal of the injunctive-relief claim (remanded), and dismissed one board member from the injunctive claim for lack of current authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pickering balancing applies and defendants retaliated by cancelling Riley’s Farm field trips | Riley: Pickering applies (school relied on vendor to provide curricular services); tweets were protected speech on public matters and cancellation was retaliation | School: relationship not akin to contractor/employee; action was to avoid disruption and thus permissible | Pickering applies to government contractors providing curricular services; plaintiffs raised a triable prima facie case of retaliation (genuine factual dispute on disruption) |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for damages | Riley: plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights were violated so officials not immune | Defendants: no clearly established law forbade action taken in response to parental complaints and anticipated disruption | Qualified immunity granted: right was not "clearly established" in this factual context, so damages claims against officials affirmed in favor of defendants |
| Whether the government-speech doctrine shields the School District’s decision | Riley: tweets were private speech by a non-school actor, not government speech | School: selection of field-trip venues implicates government speech and curriculum control | Court: government-speech doctrine does not apply—Riley’s tweets were private personal speech, not the District’s speech |
| Whether injunctive relief is available and board members are proper defendants for prospective relief | Riley: Elsasser’s testimony that guidance remains creates a genuine issue whether a continuing policy bars future trips; board members can be sued in official capacity for injunctive relief | School: no standing, no ongoing policy, and parents’ influence makes injunction inappropriate; some board members not personally involved | Court: district court erred — genuine dispute exists about ongoing policy; injunctive relief claim against board members in their official capacities may proceed (one former member dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (establishes balancing test between government employer interests and employee speech)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (extends Pickering to government contractors)
- Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (same-decision affirmative defense in retaliation cases)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (retaliation claims require proof of retaliatory motive)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (public-concern and workplace-disruption considerations in balancing)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (existing precedent must place question beyond debate for right to be clearly established)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials to stop ongoing violations)
- Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014) (speech on matters of public concern receives First Amendment protection)