School district did not violate First Amendment in banning protester from athletic events

Do you know how hard it is to overturn a jury verdict following trial? The standard of review on appeal is that we assume the jury drew all factual inferences in favor of the winning party and determine whether those facts were enough for them to win the case. Appellate courts don't like to second-guess the jury, which is why many of these appeals fail.

The case is Frierson v. Troy City School District, a summary order issued on July 11. Plaintiff brought this First Amendment and right of assembly case after he was banned from attending athletic events at Troy City High School. The district argued that it legitimately banned plaintiff and did not do so to censor him. While plaintiff said he was banned from the athletic events because he tried to organize a protest against the coaching staff and tried to encourage the students from walking off basketball court, the jury ruled in favor of the school district. 

Public spaces are not always free speech zones. The courts give each public space a different category. Parks and sidewalks are public forums, where most speech is allowed and anything goes. School property is treated as a limited public forum, where speech can be limited if the ban is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Since the school property here was a limited public form, the district only had to show that the decision to bar plaintiff from the athletic events was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

Here is how the Court of Appeals (Lohier, Menashi and Robinson) views the evidence:

a reasonable jury could have found that the decision to ban Frierson from the high school’s athletic events was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. 

The trial evidence established that on January 9, 2017, Frierson, without permission or authorization, entered the high school after hours through a locked side door, waited outside of the girls’ locker room for students on the varsity girls basketball team to finish practice, gathered several of those students in the cafeteria to discuss concerns about their coach and a potential boycott of an upcoming game, and hugged at least one student who was not his daughter. 

There was additional trial evidence that Frierson’s conduct violated the school district’s safety procedures and visitor policies, as well as the Code of Conduct for student athletes and their parents. In addition, Reinish and Carmello testified that their decision to ban Frierson was based on his conduct on January 9, 2017, not his statements or views about the team’s coach.

It took a long time for the Court of Appeals to resolve this appeal. Maybe the court went through the trial transcript carefully to make sure the jury got it right. In the end, the Court determines that the jury had a basis to believe the school district and not plaintiff. That ends the case.