The First Amendment Clinic, directed by Professor Lisa Hoppenjans, defeated a former school board president’s motion to dismiss claims based on the president’s enforcement of rules that unconstitutionally restrict the speech of individuals who participate in public comment at board meetings.
The clinic is representing Chester Asher, an activist for improving the quality of education available to St. Louis public school students. Mr. Asher was banned from attending school board meetings for six months based on allegations that he violated rules for public comment during board meetings and engaged in allegedly disruptive behavior at another public event.
The clinic filed a lawsuit against the school board, district, and then-board president alleging violations of Mr. Asher’s First Amendment and due process rights. Public comment periods of school board meetings are considered limited public forums under the First Amendment, which means that individuals can be restricted from participating in or attending public comments only if the restriction is reasonably related to the purpose of the forum and viewpoint neutral. Mr. Asher’s lawsuit alleges that the six-month ban was an unreasonable restriction on his right to participate in public comment periods and also that certain of the board’s rules for public comment are unconstitutionally vague or otherwise unconstitutionally limit speech.
The board president moved to dismiss Mr. Asher’s claims against her, arguing that all such claims were barred by qualified immunity. The district court disagreed, holding that Mr. Asher could proceed with his claim that the board chair had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by enforcing a ban on using names against speakers who criticized district leaders, but not against those who complimented district leadership. The district court also held that Mr. Asher could proceed on his claim that a blanket prohibition on the use of profanity during public comments violates the First Amendment.
