Judge rejects parts of free speech case against City of Lawrence, moves forward with other parts

United States District Judge Julie Robinson has ruled to grant in part and deny in part a motion to dismiss a case regarding freedom of speech. The motion for dismissal was made by the Defendants Lisa Larsen, Courtney Shipley, and the Board of City Commissioners of Lawrence, Kansas. Courtney Shipley was the previous mayor of Lawrence. Lisa Larsen is the current mayor of Lawrence. The case was brought by Dr. Justin Spiehs who is suing the Defendants for allegedly violating his freedom of speech and his equal protection rights at two separate Lawrence City Commission meetings. 

On April 1, the Court ruled to dismiss the “Plaintiff’s facial vagueness claim, as-applied content, and- viewpoint discrimination claim, viewpoint-discrimination claim based on handclapping, and compelled speech claim” due to “failure to state a claim.” However, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied when it came to “Plaintiff’s facial and as-applied forum status claims, retaliation claim, and equal protection claim.” The Defendants’ motion to dismiss “Defendant City Commission for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” was also denied as well as the “Defendants’ motion to dismiss Larsen and Shipley on the basis of qualified immunity.” 

The ruling highlighted an October 11, 2022, meeting when then mayor Shipley kept interrupting Dr. Spiehs who had been talking about statistics in regard to how things were under President Trump versus President Biden, something she considered “non-germane”. Shipley called for a recess of the meeting and Dr. Spiehs was removed from the building by security officers. At the next public meeting on October 18, 2022, a speaker named “Nicole,” also spoke about former presidents without interruption or removal. 

The ruling further highlighted a City Commission meeting on July 18, 2023, when Larsen was mayor where she, too, interrupted Dr. Spiehs multiple times for not speaking about “germane” topics, eventually pausing the meeting to have Dr. Spiehs removed from the building by a security officer. This was contrasted by a November 7, 2023 meeting where several public commenters spoke about the conflict regarding Israel and Gaza. It was noted in the ruling that “Larsen interrupted two of the speakers with a warning that they needed to speak
about matters germane to the business of the City, but allowed the speakers to continue speaking.”

After the ruling, on April 2, 2024, Dr. Spiehs went to the city commission meeting to provide an update in person regarding the case.

“If local newspapers around here even bother to report on this, they won’t be unbiased so I want to provide everyone with an update on the case and the judge’s rulings,” Dr. Spiehs said. “I am the Plaintiff in this case and the City is the Defendant, so, reading now from the docket text memorandum and order: ‘Defendants’ motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s facial and as applied forum status claims, retaliation claim, and unequal protection claim. Defendants’ motion to dismiss defendant City Commission for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Larsen and Shipley on the basis of qualified immunity is denied…’ Without qualified immunity, Larsen and Shipley can now be held individually liable for my First Amendment retaliation claim, my equal protection claim, and my as applied forum status claim. The judge also ruled that I was engaged in First Amendment protected speech each time I was censored and removed at these City Commission meetings.”

Dr. Spiehs further stated that “anyone with a law degree” would say that 90 percent of his claims are moving forward with this ruling and that he will continue to provide updates at future commission meetings. 

Dr. Spiehs was right about local newspapers being biased when reporting on the ruling. On April 4, Lawrence Journal-World (LJW) ran a story on the ruling with the following headline: ‘Judge rejects ‘infamous’ commenter’s assertion that city’s rules are unconstitutionally vague; throws out some claims, allows others’. They further promoted the article on Facebook with the following snippet from the article: 

“Lawrence’s ‘most infamous’ commenter has failed to demonstrate that the City Commission’s rules about comments at public meetings are unconstitutionally vague or that the city engaged in unlawful viewpoint and content discrimination against him. Federal Judge Julie Robinson in an order this week tossed some of his claims while allowing others to move forward.”

This should not be surprising, however, as the media outlet has regularly sided with the left-wing government over the individual citizen, especially when it comes to Dr. Spiehs who ran for County Commissioner as a Republican and would regularly have false information and hit pieces written about him by the outlet.