Houston Community College System v. Wilson concerned whether a school board member could maintain an action against the school and its trustees under 42 ...
John Ramirez argued that the refusal of prison officials to allow his pastor to lay hands on him in the execution chamber violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment. He sought an injunction barring his execution unless this request was granted. Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh, who were part of the majority, also filed concurring opinions dealing with the future application of RLUIPA. Justice Thomas, who argued that Ramirez was engaging in a continuous pattern of misconduct merely to forestall his execution, dissented. Moreover, the only adverse action at issue before the Court is itself a form of speech from Wilson’s colleagues that concerns the conduct of public office. Thus, to bring an actionable First Amendment retaliation claim, someone like Wilson must show that the government took an “adverse action” in response to his speech that “would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.” Nieves v. For example, Congress has censured Members not only for objectionable speech directed at fellow Members but also for comments to the media, public remarks disclosing confidential information, and conduct or speech thought damaging to the nation.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. The Supreme Court of ...
“The First Amendment surely promises an elected representative like Mr. Wilson the right to speak freely on questions of government policy. At the same time, no one would think that a mere frown from a supervisor constitutes a sufficiently adverse action to give rise to an actionable First Amendment claim.” Instead, when it comes to disagreements of this sort, history suggests a different understanding of the First Amendment—one permitting “[f]ree speech on both sides and for every faction on any side.” “[E]lected bodies in this country have long exercised the power to censure their members,” the opinion explains. It concerned the public conduct of another elected representative. Everyone involved was an equal member of the same deliberative body. “He arranged robocalls to the constituents of certain trustees to publicize his views. Over time, throughout the years of ensuing litigation, Wilson removed the individual board members from his lawsuit and left the HCC as the lone defendant. “Some adverse actions may be easy to identify—an arrest, a prosecution, or a dismissal from governmental employment,” the opinion notes. But, fatally for that claim, he failed to file a cross-petition for review. During the merits phase, Wilson also argued against the Fifth Circuit’s denial of his claim over the loss of board perks. And the adversarial behavior didn’t stop there.
Wilson had sued the board in for a First Amendment violation after the board publicly censured him. The Supreme Court rejected Wilson's claim that the censure ...
At least in these circumstances, we do not see how the board’s censure could have materially deterred an elected official like Mr. Wilson from exercising his own right to speak.” As it comes to us, too, the censure did not prevent Mr. Wilson from doing his job, it did not deny him any privilege of office, and Mr. Wilson does not allege it was defamatory. Wilson was elected to the board in 2013, according to the opinion. When individuals ‘consent to be a candidate for a public office conferred by the election of the people,’ they necessarily ‘pu[t] [their] character in issue, so far as it may respect [their] fitness and qualifications for the office.’” - “... The only adverse action at issue before us is itself a form of speech from Mr. Wilson’s colleagues that concerns the conduct of public office. In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers -- and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.
In a case relevant to K-12 school boards dealing with disruptive members, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a community college ...
“In 1954, the Senate ‘condemned’ Senator Joseph McCarthy for bringing ‘the Senate into dishonor,’ citing his conduct and speech both within that body and before the press,” Gorsuch said. The censure made Wilson ineligible to serve as an officer of the board, and he could not access his $5,000 in discretionary funds without board approval or be reimbursed for college-related travel. Gorsuch said in his opinion that the court does not “mean to suggest that verbal reprimands or censures can never give rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim. He made anti-gay remarks and objected to the inclusion of sexual orientation in the community college’s nondiscrimination policies. And after the community college board voted to open a campus in Qatar, over Wilson’s opposition, he orchestrated robocalls to the constituents of other board members and hired private investigators to check a fellow board member’s residency, court papers say. (The lawyer for Houston community college system replied that the public board might have such authority.) The Houston community college board was supported in its appeal by the National School Boards Association and its state affiliate, the Texas Association of School Boards. Writing for the unanimous court, Gorsuch said that “elected bodies in this country have long exercised the power to censure their members.” The U.S. Senate issued its first censure of a member in 1811, and the House of Representatives did the same 10 years later, he said. “When individuals consent to be a candidate for a public office conferred by the election of the people, they necessarily put their character in issue, so far as it may respect their fitness and qualifications for the office,” he said. Recent examples showthat school boards have censured their members over offensive outbursts or social media speech on hot-button issues such as COVID-19 protocols, teaching about race, and transgender student rights. The board’s censure resolution said that Wilson had “demonstrated a lack of respect for the board’s collective decisionmaking process, a failure to encourage and engage in open and honest discussions in making board decisions, and a failure to respect differences of opinion among trustees.” “In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers—and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court in Houston Community College System v.
The ruling came in the case of an elected trustee of the Houston Community College board who sued his fellow board members, charging that they violated his ...
You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
The board went to the Supreme Court, which on Thursday reversed. In a unanimous 13-page ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that “elected bodies in this country ...
“What history suggests,” Gorsuch continued, “we believe our contemporary doctrine confirms.” To prevail on his claim that the board had violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for his complaints about the board, Gorsuch explained, Wilson would have to show that the board had taken negative action against him that it wouldn’t have otherwise taken. In a unanimous 13-page ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that “elected bodies in this country have long exercised the power to censure their members,” and there is no reason to believe that the First Amendment was intended to change that practice. Wilson’s actions in turn prompted the board to adopt a 2018 resolution reflecting the board’s conclusion that his “conduct was not only inappropriate, but reprehensible.”
In an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that Houston Community College's board did not abridge board member David Wilson's free-speech rights when ...
“When the government interacts with private individuals as sovereign, employer, educator, or licensor, its threat of a censure could raise First Amendment questions. “Government officials who reprimand or censure students, employees, or licensees may in some circumstances materially impair First Amendment freedoms,” Gorsuch wrote. In an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that Houston Community College’s board did not abridge board member David Wilson’s free-speech rights when it reprimanded him following years of acrimony between him and other members of the panel.