Jury Concludes Policy Banning Written Signs at School Board Meetings Was Unreasonable, Implemented in a Viewpoint-Based Way

The court entered judgment today on this in Schmidt v. Falcon School Dist. 49; here's an excerpt from the Mar. 21, 2025 opinion by Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell (D. Colo.) explaining the issues:

On November 10, 2022, the [School District Board of Education] conducted a special meeting to consider a proposed resolution concerning an outspoken member of the Board, Ivy Liu. During that meeting, certain attendees held signs calling on Ms. Liu to resign. Others in attendance displayed signs that had "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" symbols displayed.

Apparently, the chaotic nature of the November 10, 2022, special meeting prompted the [Board] to "reevaluat[e] standards of appropriate decorum at Board meetings." This re-evaluation led to what the Court will refer to as District 49's "Sign Policy." The Sign Policy prohibits District 49 meeting attendees from holding signs with specific written language on them—such as text calling for a Board member to resign. The Sign Policy allows for other expressive conduct, including thumbs up/thumbs down signs, jazz hands, and standing. Defendants say they began enforcing this policy during the November 10, 2022, regular meeting which immediately followed the same-day special meeting regarding Ms. Liu.

The Board conducted another meeting on February 22, 2023. For at least some portion of the meeting, Plaintiffs, sitting in the front row, held 8½ x 11" letter-sized signs at chest level. These signs called for the resignation of Defendant Graham [the School Board president], as well as fellow Board members, Lori Thompson and Rick Van Wieren. Nearly 2 hours and 45 minutes into the February 22, 2023, meeting, a disagreement arose between Ms. Liu and Defendant Graham. Nearly 2 hours and 50 minutes into the meeting, Defendant Graham halted the meeting and demanded that Plaintiffs not display their signs. Approximately a minute later, Defendant Graham again paused the meeting and declared the Board was going into recess to address Plaintiffs' signs.

Shortly thereafter, Defendant Glenn, a safety and security specialist employed by District 49, told Plaintiffs their signs were disruptive to the meeting and that they needed to leave. Defendant Glenn was assisted by Defendant Konz, another safety and security specialist employed by District 49. Defendants Glenn and Konz then escorted Plaintiffs from the meeting and did not allow them to use the restroom before leaving the building.

The court concluded that the meetings were "limited public fora" opened up on government property, in which speech restrictions would be constitutional if they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. And it held that the matter was left for the jury:

Here, the reasonableness of the restriction turns on certain disputed facts. Most significantly, Defendants say the no-written-messages restriction is justified because written messages are more disruptive than other forms of expression. Plaintiffs on the other hand, contend the distinction is illogical and lacks a sensible basis. In other words, there is a genuine dispute over the reasonableness of the restrictions. Resolving that dispute will require evidence and witness testimony concerning the November 2022 special meeting and the particular risks that came to light as a result of that meeting. This is turn will require credibility determinations and weighing of evidence that is reserved for a factfinder.

Today's judgment stated:

The trial proceeded to conclusion and the jury rendered its verdict as follows:

• Plaintiffs did prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that John Graham took action against Plaintiffs based upon the viewpoint being expressed by Plaintiffs on their signs.
• Defendants did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendants' restriction on Plaintiffs' speech was reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum.
• John Graham caused the deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
• David Glenn did not cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
• Robert Konz did not cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
• The deprivation of rights was attributable to the School District's policy, practice or custom.

The jury awarded $2K in damages against the School District and $2.5K against Graham; the judgment also calls for payment of plaintiffs' "reasonable attorney's fees and costs."

Christopher P. Finney (Finney Law Firm, LLC) and Curt C. Hartman represent plaintiffs.