First Amendment Claim Over Muting of Parent's Comments at School Board Meeting Can Go Forward

More from today's long decision by Judge Eric Melgren (D. Kan.) in Schmidt v. Huff (and read this post for the analysis of a separate First Amendment claim that Schmidt also brought):

Plaintiff Carrie Schmidt is the mother of two students who attend Gardner-Edgerton High School…. In 2022, Plaintiff started to speak at [school district] meetings, reading aloud to the Board words, phrases, and descriptions contained in the District's educational curriculum and library.

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff became a member of the District Educational Services Advisory Committee. The Committee investigates and reviews the District curriculum, instruction, and assessment topics, and it also examines the accreditation process, progress, curriculum standards, and federal programs. The Committee makes recommendations to the School Board and Superintendent Brian Huff about these matters….

At an August 2024 District school board meeting, Plaintiff was the only individual signed up to speak. Immediately after Board President Tom Reddin announced that it was time for "hearing and requests and suggestions" from the public, Defendant Gregg Chapman, a Board Member, interjected, asking Reddin if he could speak first. As Plaintiff was walking up to the microphone, Defendant Chapman started his pre-written speech. He said the following:

I assume I know what the speaker is going to talk about …. Ms. Schmidt has made all kinds of allegations about our district and board of education…. She also has a misunderstanding of library books which are for enjoyment versus instructional materials, assigned books/materials…. It is entirely disingenuous to almost single-handedly bog down a transparent system with up to fourteen years' worth of reviews and then shout from the podium that we are taking too long and not doing anything about it….

I used to believe in the power of one voice, but this process has made it clear that one voice without understanding or discernment can cause more damage to a noble cause than an individual who just wants the issue resolved and working alongside the team.

It seems like she just gets pleasure from reading books with questionable content to this audience where there are minors listening.  it just feels like she wants the shock attention that is caused by reading the out of context sexual clips to the minors and adults in the audience…. [H]ow it's being handled is costing this community valuable time, effort and unfortunately valuable people who didn't cause the issue but have been drug through the mud by this continued and disingenuous rhetoric.

Members of the public who wish to speak during the "hearing and requests and suggestions" phase of the meeting are only allowed three minutes. Plaintiff had already prepared a three-minute speech that day, but after hearing Chapman's five-minute speech, she asked if she could respond. Chapman replied, "nope, you get your minutes." Thus, Plaintiff gave her pre- prepared three-minute speech. Like her speeches at previous Board Meetings, the content contained the language used in the books available at the District's library. Half-way through her speech, Reddin interrupted Plaintiff stating, "for anybody who has kids at home watching this, please pause it for a minute while she puts on her performance." The District added 15 seconds to Plaintiff's speech time for this interruption. However, throughout the duration of Plaintiff's speech, her microphone was muted until approximately the last 20 seconds of her speech.

Afterwards, Plaintiff approached Assistant Superintendent Ben Boothe and asked to repeat her speech so that viewers watching from home could hear it. Boothe denied the request, informing Plaintiff that the volume on the District's YouTube page would be increased and that viewers could instead read her remarks through closed captions. However, the District's YouTube page did not display closed captions for the portions of Plaintiff's speech during which the microphone had been muted.

The court rejected Schmidt's claim as to Chapman's critical remarks about her:

Defendant Chapman claims he is entitled to qualified immunity because his statements at the School Board Meeting constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not violate any clearly established constitutional right….

Plaintiff suffered no penalties for speaking at the board meeting such as a threat of violence, jail time, or a monetary fine. Instead, she claims that when Chapman accused her of getting "pleasure from reading books with questionable content to … minors listening," she suffered slander, shame, and ridicule. If Chapman's statements only served to damage Plaintiff's reputation, then they are insufficient to establish an injury within the meaning of a First Amendment retaliation claim. As such, Chapman did not unconstitutionally retaliate against Plaintiff, and so the Court dismisses this claim against him….

But it allowed her claim over the allegedly viewpoint-based muting of the microphone to go forward:

Plaintiff claims that she was targeted by Chapman for reading parts of books contained in the District's curriculum, when others were not. Specifically, she names Erika Sheets, and other individuals associated with the activist group, Moms for Liberty, who have brought complaints before the Board without facing similar treatment. Plaintiff claims that she alone had her microphone muted during her speech, was denied the chance to repeat it after the Board restored her microphone, her speech was not closed-captioned on the Board's YouTube channel, and others were not subjected to similar targeted opposition without an opportunity to respond before giving their prepared remarks.

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that Chapman's comments and subsequent actions towards her clearly show that he was targeting her based on his opposition to her viewpoint. For example, Chapman prefaced his remarks with the assumption that he knew what Plaintiff would be talking about before characterizing her criticisms as being "entirely disingenuous," "without understanding or discernment," and "damag[ing]." Additionally, Chapman trivialized Plaintiff's concerns about the Board's book review process by accusing Plaintiff of getting "pleasure from reading books with questionable content to this audience where there are minors listening" and seeking the "shock attention that is caused by reading the out of context sexual clips to the minors and adults in the audience." Plaintiff claims that the proximity between Chapman's remarks and the subsequent silencing she experienced establishes that her opinion or perspective was the rationale for the restriction.

Taking the facts in Plaintiff's Complaint as true, the Court agrees that Chapman engaged in viewpoint discrimination against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff was still able to speak for three minutes, her speech was rendered ineffective because it could not be heard by viewers. Plaintiff's microphone was muted, and closed captioning was unavailable on the District's YouTube page. Moreover, Chapman's remarks demonstrate that he disagreed with Plaintiff's views and, likely due to those views, he subjected Plaintiff to less favorable treatment than other speakers….