Federal lawsuit filed against Lawrence City Commission, others for alleged First Amendment violations

A federal lawsuit was filed on Sunday, November 12, by Dr. Justin Spiehs who claims in the lawsuit that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been infringed upon by the Lawrence City Commission and the Lawrence Public Library. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, which allows individuals to sue state government employees and others acting “under color of state law” for civil rights violations, the lawsuit names individuals in their individual capacity as government officials including current Lawrence Mayor Lisa Larsen and former Lawrence Mayor Courtney Shipley, who is currently serving as a city commissioner.

According to Lawrence City Director of Communications and Community Relations Cori Wallace, as of 11 a.m. November 14, the City of Lawrence had yet to receive the complaint.

Dr. Spiehs ran for Douglas County Commissioner in 2022, but the Republican candidate failed to receive enough votes in the heavily Democrat area. He became known in Lawrence for his protests against mask mandates on children, and later for supporting pro-life efforts during ‘Value Them Both’. He could often be heard at commission meetings for both the City of Lawrence and Douglas County on a number of topics, but especially on government policies related to COVID-19.

The lawsuit lists the governing bodies and individuals working in their individual capacity as government officials that are being sued and details the history of the alleged damages, dating back to 2021. It also details two specific instances regarding the Lawrence Public Library. One instance from May 17, 2023, where the public was invited for an event to get information about gender markers related to legal documents and another event from June 11, 2023, when he was kicked out of the library for silently holding a sign during a drag queen story hour for children.

The 45-page lawsuit lists seven complaints:

• Violation of freedom of speech “declaratory and injunctive relief facial challenge” by Mayor Shipley and Mayor Larsen who “had final policy making authority regarding the suppression of Mr. Spiehs’ speech and his repeated removals from the building during a Kansas Open Meeting.”

• Violation of freedom of speech by the Commission for discriminating against Dr. Spiehs when it comes to speaking on topics not germane to topics being discussed despite “Numerous other speakers” being “permitted to give the same speech in topic and substance” as Dr. Spiehs “without interruption, suppression of the speech, or removal from the building as a result of the speakers respective speeches.”

• Violation of freedom of speech in retaliation to Dr. Spiehs’ words and actions including prohibiting Dr. Spiehs from handclapping (a communicative activity) while allowing others to handclap.

• Violation of freedom of speech when it comes to content and viewpoint discrimination.

• Violation of freedom of speech through direction of compelled speech, noting the handclapping.

• Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Right to equal protection of the law, alleging that Dr. Spiehs is “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated” despite “no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”

• Violation of freedom of speech from the Library defendants due to content and viewpoint discrimination. The library, being a public forum, held two LGBTQ-related events for the public of which Dr. Spiehs brought signs to protest only to be refused entry or kicked out.

“It’s about my God-given rights,” Dr. Spiehs told The Kansas Constitutional in an email. “These aren’t Lisa Larson-given rights or Courtney Shipley-given rights or some whiny woke library employee-given rights. They are God-given. And thank God for that otherwise these Godless heathens would take away our rights. As is evident with my complaint. It’s viewpoint political. If the commission agree with your politics, they let you talk, but if they don’t agree, and depending on what mood they’re in, they won’t let you talk, or even clap your hands. Think about that. Definition of tyrants. And the commission has made me the example. With the library it’s about the whiny woke not being able to tolerate a different viewpoint and so they turn into the tyrants that they are.”

Dr. Spiehs’ attorney, Linus Baker of Stilwell, KS told The Kansas Constitutional via email that he firmly believes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is “vitally important particularly in this time of so much political censorship.”

Baker went on to note that “government should not be in the business of choosing sides on a political topic, much less punishing those who express contrary opinions,” calling it “repugnant to the First Amendment.”

The plaintiff is demanding “a trial by jury for all issues so triable herein” with the hopes of nine outcomes:

• An order enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from ejecting or otherwise removing plaintiff Spiehs or any public speaker solely because of a claim by the Commission or the Mayor that the speech was off-topic;

• An order enjoining the Library Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from ejecting or otherwise removing plaintiff Spiehs from library events because of the silent display of a sign containing protected speech;

• An order enjoining defendants from enforcing the Commission’s policy of “should be germane to the business” because it is advisory and not mandatory and is subject to unbridled discretion by a presiding Mayor in its interpretation and unconstitutionally vague;

• An order enjoining defendants and Library Defendants from enforcing the Commission’s or Library’s other speech prohibitions or being removed as a consequence of violating the Commission’s or Library’s speech code;

• Declaratory relief consistent with the injunction, to the effect that the Commission Policy and Library Behavior Code with its speech prohibitions described above are unconstitutionally void and unenforceable as they violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and petition, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process against vague laws;

• An award of actual damages to the plaintiff;

• An award of nominal damages to the plaintiff.

• Against each individual defendant in their individual capacity an award of punitive and exemplary damages to the plaintiff;

• Cost of suit, including attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

The Kansas Constitutional will follow this case closely as it continues to develop.