Local gadfly can't sue school district over speech violations

Every community has a gadfly who writes letters to the editor and to public officials. They may be difficult and even annoying but they do represent the First Amendment in action. In North Korea, this activity might land you in jail. In America, this activity might land you in court. That's what happened here, except the Court of Appeals says plaintiff has no viable First Amendment claim.

The case is Searle v. Red Creek Central School District, a summary order issued on May 12. From August 2019 through January 2020, plaintiff repeatedly emailed faculty and administrators, questioning their competence and professionalism. In response, the district told plaintiff that for the rest of the school year, he should direct any communications to the superintendent or get permission before entering school grounds. Plaintiff then wrote an editorial for the local paper referencing that directive and calling for the superintendent's removal. This case was dismissed under Rule 12, before the parties could take any discovery. The Court of Appeals(Livingston, Raggi and Nardini) affirms.

The case was properly dismissed because, while the district told plaintiff he needed permission before he entered school property, that is not enough for a First Amendment lawsuit in the context of this case. To win the case, plaintiff has to show the directive chilled his speech or caused him some other harm. The complaint does not allege that plaintiff changed his behavior in any way in response to the directive. Note that he published an editorial against the school district shortly after the district issued the directive. Nor does he allege any other harm flowing from the directive. Key cases on chilling and other First Amendment harms in this context are Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001), and Zerkha v. Amicone, 634 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2011).