Moms for Liberty wins constitutional challenge to school board's comments policy
People and members of Moms for Liberty, a conservative parental rights group, attend a campaign event in Vero Beach, Florida, on Oct. 16, 2022. (Photo by Giorgio Viera/AFP via Getty Images)
A federal appeals court has ruled for Moms for Liberty, a conservative parental rights group, in its challenge to a Florida school board policy that allows the presiding officer to interrupt meeting comments that are “personally directed,” “abusive” or “obscene.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta ruled against the policy of the Brevard County school board in Florida in an Oct. 8 opinion by Judge Britt C. Grant, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
The Volokh Conspiracy published opinion highlights.
The 11th Circuit said the restriction on abusive speech was viewpoint-based and facially unconstitutional; the restriction on personally directed speech was unreasonable, vague and facially unconstitutional; and the restriction on obscenity was unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.
“The government has relatively broad power to restrict speech in limited public forums—but that power is not unlimited,” Grant wrote. “Speech restrictions must still be reasonable, viewpoint-neutral and clear enough to give speakers notice of what speech is permissible.”
The opinion noted that these comments drew an objection from the school board chair:
• The school board masking policy is a “simple ploy to silence our opposition to this evil LGBTQ agenda.” (The chair thought that characterizing people as “evil” was abusive.)
• “If you have students who are not sure if they are a boy or a girl, please let me help you in knowing that God created us with one or the other chromosome, which makes us male or female. But the liberal left, who seem to rely so heavily on ‘science’ … ” (The chair thought that the term “liberal left” was abusive name-calling.)
• A complaint about having to watch a board member from her district “behind a plastic prison,” which referenced a plexiglass barrier during the COVID-19 pandemic. (The chair thought that the comment violated the ban on personally directed speech.) Others who made comments thanking specific board members were sometimes but not always interrupted.
• This passage from a book that the speaker deemed to be inappropriate for the elementary school library: “I tiptoed toward the door, peering through the window at the boy’s pants around his ankles squeezed between April’s straddled legs as she lay on the teacher’s desk. I swung the door open letting a soft light from the hallway shine a spotlight on them. ‘S- - -!’ he muttered.” (The chair stopped the speaker on obscenity grounds.)
Britt’s opinion was joined in full by another Trump appointee, Judge Barbara Lagoa. Judge Charles R. Wilson, an appointee of f former President Bill Clinton, concurred in the judgment, except he would find that the present ban on personally directed speech is facially constitutional.
