Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming denial of summary judgment. Plaintiff, an officer in the University of Michigan-Deaborn police department, brought First Amendment retaliation claims against the University, the Police Chief, and a University Vice Chancellor after he was suspended without pay for ten days for speaking with a newspaper reporter about what he felt was mishandling of a student’s sexual assault allegation against a professor. In affirming denial of summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit held that expungement of plaintiff’s disciplinary records is prospective relief not barred by sovereign immunity. In holding that plaintiff’s comments to the reporter were protected speech, the court found that they were not made pursuant to his ordinary duties, noting that he was hired as a general police officer, and was employed neither as a specialist in sex crimes nor as a liaison to media or the outside community. It further held that plaintiff’s right to speak on matters of public concern outside his ordinary duties was clearly established and that therefore, the University Police Chief and Vice Chancellor are not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity.  

Opinion vacating and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, an activist who earned money by distributing materials advocating veganism on college campuses, brought First Amendment claims under §1983 against Northwest Missouri State University officials after he was issued a trespass warning for distributing leaflets on campus without first notifying the University. The University’s policy required that non-University publications may be distributed on campus only if prior notice is given to the University, distribution is limited to areas deemed appropriate, and the publication is not defamatory, obscene, or likely to incite violence. The district court found the policy unconstitutionally overbroad. In vacating and remanding for judgment in favor of the University, the Eighth Circuit held that the advance notice requirement for non-University publications is content neutral; that the policy does not function as a prior restraint because its language provided that distribution will be unrestricted with advance notice; and that the policy is on its face unlikely to restrict a substantial number of applications. 

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former professor at Collin College, brought First Amendment claims against the College and multiple officials, alleging that his contract was not renewed because of various statements he made in the press, on social media, or in the classroom about removal of Confederate monuments, the 2019 El Paso shooter, and the College’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, including its recommendation that faculty not discuss masking. The court granted the College’s motion for summary judgment finding that the College’s policy on Professional Ethics, which required employees to “act in public affairs in such a manner as to bring credit to the College District,” and its policy on Employee Expression, which required disagreements with policies to be channeled through existing committees, were not facially prior restraints on expression, and created neither an outright ban on speech nor a deterrent to a broad category of expression by a large number of potential speakers. In denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s as-applied prior restraint and overbreadth claims, the court reserved the issues until factual questions were resolved.