A federal judge has refused to dismiss the former president of the Lafayette Public Library's governing board from a First Amendment lawsuit against him and Lafayette Consolidated Government.
The suit, which was filed in March 2023, arose from a January 2023 meeting of the board, which Robert Judge presided over. He is now simply a member of the board, no longer president; the suit was filed against him as the president of the board and personally.
The plaintiffs in the case, Lynette Mejia and Melanie Brevis, co-founders of the groups Lafayette Citizens Against Censorship and Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship, filed the suit after Brevis was removed from the meeting while trying to make a comment. To see our story about what happened click here.
The suit was filed on their behalf by the Tulane First Amendment Clinic. To read last week's ruling, scroll down.
So far, the court has dismissed from the suit the First Amendment claims against the Lafayette Parish Sheriff and the two deputies who removed Brevis, but allowed the state open meetings law claims against them to stand. The Court also has dismissed the state law claims against the current board president, but has allowed the First Amendment claims against him to stand.
The ruling issued recently addressed Judge's request that the court dismiss the claims against him, arguing he had "qualified immunity" as a government official; that he wasn't an attorney trained in First Amendment law and he was simply enforcing board policy.
The plaintiffs argue that his enforcement wasn't neutral, and that he allowed speakers who agreed with him to say things that those who disagreed with him were not allowed to say. That is not allowed, the judge wrote.
"These standards allow Judge and the Library Board to regulate the subject matter and manner of delivery of public comments during Board meetings, but they cannot discriminate in how they apply these rules based on a speaker's viewpoint," the court wrote.
The plaintiffs in the case argue that Judge silenced Brevis and other speakers "because they opposed the Library Board's policies," while Judge argued that Brevis' statements were "rude, discourteous and disruptive personal attacks" on board members.
"The Court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Judge's motivation for silencing Brevis was based on impermissible viewpoint discrimination," the judge wrote.
He noted that she registered to speak as was required, did not exceed the three-minute time limit, and did not disrupt the meeting as they took place after the board had conclued its business.
"Moreover, based on the audio recording of Brevis' remarks, it does not appear that Brevis was shouting, yelling or otherwise disrupting the Board's public comment session," the judge wrote.
The ruling included a transcript of Brevis' comments, noting that the court viewed video and listened to audio of the meeting in question - and of other meetings.
"The audio recordings of prior Library Board meetings also support Brevis' contention that other public speakers addressed similar topics during public comment sessions but, unlike Brevis, were not silenced," the court wrote.
The ruling also discusses the board's policy against "debate or confrontation with the board," calling it "constitutionally suspect," since it would require that a speaker disagree with a board member in order to do so - and that means the prohibition against policies based on viewpoint could be violated.
The court wrote that Judge's justification for silencing Brevis based on his finding her comments offensive "does not pass constitutional muster."
The court also addresses Mejia's claim, which was different that Brevis' claim. She argues that Judge's actions against Brevis have had a chilling effect on her own expression, as she's now afraid of getting arrested. The court found that Mejia did demonstrate an issue that should move forward.
The suit alleges that the board's policies - both as written and as implemented - violate both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana's Open Meetings laws. The plaintiffs are suing LCG as the supervising agency of the board.
Here's the ruling:
