Image Credit: Canva
The Tennessee Conservative [By Paula Gomes] –
A First Amendment Rights case went before a Tennessee appeals court panel earlier this week. The lawsuit was filed by nonprofit Moms for Liberty, a parental empowerment group, against the Wilson County School Board (WCSB) in 2023.
Institute for Free Speech (IFS) Attorney Brett Nolan argued on Tuesday that WCSB violates the constitutional rights of residents with rules for their meetings that effectively silence criticism. Moms for Liberty also say that the procedural rules require disclosures from residents before speaking to the board that are invasive.
“When a school board opens its meetings for public comment, the First Amendment guarantees parents the right to stand at the podium and criticize their local officials without fear of intimidation or censorship,” said Nolan.
While meetings are open to the public, speakers in the past have been directed to disclose their address before making comments and any speech deemed to be “abusive” toward the board as a whole or to any of its individual members, the Director of Schools, or district employees is not permitted.
Additionally, if a resident wishes to speak on a topic that is not on the agenda for the meeting, the board may deny the resident time to speak at all if they decide the remarks are not in the “public interest.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson denied Moms for Liberty a preliminary injunction, finding the “public interest” provision to be reasonable, and refused to enjoin the rules regarding address disclosure and abusive comments after WCSB removed these provisions from its meeting policies.
Moms for Liberty’s appeal argued that the quick revision of policies was done to avoid the lower court taking action and stated that board meetings have not changed significantly.
While WCSB said in its brief that without necessary “guardrails” governmental meetings would descend into “utter anarchy,” Nolan argued on Tuesday that, “Harsh and critical speech is not anarchy” and that the First Amendment guarantees a parent’s right to such speech.
Donald Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, asked Nolan what proof existed that the board would reinstate the address disclosure and abusive comment rules, to which Nolan replied, “The chair herself said these rules can be flipped at any time.”
While the plaintiffs in the case have made comments at board meetings in the past, Nolan said they do not have complete freedom of speech.
“They want to speak very harshly but self-censor because if you are cut off by the board, you’re done,” he said.
WCSB Attorney Christopher Hayden of the Jackson, Tennessee, firm Sellers, Craig, and Hayden was asked about the language of the “public interest” rule.
U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, another Trump appointee, suggested that it was vague and broad in scope but Hayden stated that it was a relevancy requirement only and while it could have been “better drafted” believed it to be constitutionally defensible.
Hayden also affirmed that WCSB would not reverse course and reinstate the address and abusive comment rules.
Barack Obama appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Stranch urged both parties to settle out of court after questioning the attorneys on each side about the possibility of mediation.
There is no set date for the court to make a decision on the case.
About the Author: Paula Gomes is a Tennessee resident and reporter for The Tennessee Conservative. You can reach Paula at paula@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
