Lawrence USD 497 receives federal lawsuit for allegedly violating 1st and 14th Amendment rights

After filing a federal lawsuit against the City of Lawrence and the Lawrence Public Library for alleged violations of the First Amendment, Dr. Justin Spiehs filed another federal lawsuit on December 22, 2023 against Lawrence Public Schools USD 497, also for allegedly violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The 70-page lawsuit names the School Superintendent Anthony Lewis, Board Clerk and Assistant of the Superintendent Alyse Donnell and those currently serving on USD 497’s Board of Education including two previous Board of Education members including Kelly Jones, Shannon Kimball, Carole Cadue-Blackwood, Paula Vann, GR Gordon Ross, Bob Byers, Erica Hill (President of the BOE), Paula Smith, Andrew Nussbaum, and Kay Emerson as the defendants.

This case details a long and complicated history that Dr. Spiehs has dealt with when it comes to the school board. With a PhD in lifespan human development and as a child therapist, Dr. Spiehs was worried about how mask mandates on children would affect young people. Due to this, he began to protest the mask mandates at USD 497.

Dr. Spiehs has received a permanent ban from USD 497 property which has now gone on for over two years. This was due to an incident on October 26, 2021, where Dr. Spiehs and his female friend Sue Herynk appeared at a “public presentation” at Lawrence High School. Neither wore a mask despite a mask mandate initiated for USD 497 property on July 27, 2021. Dr. Spiehs did have a note from his medical doctor excusing him from masking. However, Lewis gave Dr. Spiehs a “lifetime permanent ban” from USD 497 property after that. It should be noted that Herynk, who also did not wear a mask, was not banned from the property. Dr. Spiehs is no longer allowed to physically attend open meetings conducted by the Lawrence School Board during non-school hours. This has limited Dr. Spiehs’ public comment to a WebEx connection where the school board has been known to mute him for saying things they don’t like. However, at one point, the Board of Education removed Dr. Spiehs’ connection completely, banning him for 90 days after he read a “made-up story” as a means to getting his point across.

In the lawsuit, it states that the school board has “content-based restrictions regarding speech” which was “demonstrated” in its application of Dr. Spiehs speech. The lawsuit goes onto note that “there are videos of every open meeting since January 1, 2021.” These recordings, the lawsuit suggests, “speaks for themselves.”

“The defendant board member president never stopped a speaker for making positive comments about students or staff at the Board’s open meetings,” the lawsuit reads. This is in contrast to the numerous times when Dr. Spiehs was stopped from speaking due to his comments, even if his comments were not negative, but rather statements of fact that anyone can look up such as when Dr. Spiehs mentioned Lewis’ $236,530 salary after the superintendent’s $10,000 raise the month prior. Dr. Spiehs’ comments, which were recorded, came during public comment at a USD 497 school board meeting on February 14, 2022. Dr. Spiehs was immediately told by school board member Kelly Jones that his comments were “not allowed.”

It should be noted that a few days prior to this incident, another incident occurred between Lewis and Dr. Spiehs. According to the lawsuit,

“On February 6, 2022, Dr. Spiehs, and two other individuals were protesting at the corner of 110 McDonald Drive, where Lawrence school district headquarters are located. One of the signs included defendant Lewis’ name, his salary and the letters ‘WTF.’”

“Defendant Lewis was driving a car at that location. Defendant Lewis appeared to direct his vehicle towards the protestors including Dr. Spiehs causing Dr. Spiehs concern that he may be struck by defendant Lewis’ vehicle.

“Sue Herynk, one of the protestors stated that defendant Lewis’ car swerved toward the group when they were standing at the edge of the intersection and came within three or four feet of Dr. Spiehs.”

Lewis admitted his car did go out of the lane, stating his car had “jerked.” A police report was filed by Dr. Spiehs and an investigation was conducted.

The federal lawsuit details six reasons for Dr. Spiehs’ cause of action.

The first being a violation of Dr. Spiehs’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech in retaliation. Under this section it notes that Lewis understood that the permanent ban for Dr. Spiehs meant Dr. Spiehs would no longer be allowed to speak at the BOE meetings due to them taking place on USD 497 property. The lawsuit also notes the dearth of policies that the school board made specifically for Dr. Spiehs in 2021 and 2022 including interrupting the speaker, limiting the scope of a public speaker’s topic or speech, and removal of a speaker at an open meeting conducted by the board.

A second cause of action alleges Dr. Spiehs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law was violated. Many things are noted including how he was banned for not wearing a mask but his friend was not, and how he was not allowed to speak about staff and students but the board and USD 497 administrators regularly discuss specific named USD 497 staff and students.

The third cause of action depicts an alleged violation of Dr. Spiehs’ First Amendment right to association, freedom of speech, and religion. This section of the lawsuit notes how USD 497 has contractually opened its school property for those renting school space on Sundays, including churches. Due to Dr. Spiehs’ lifetime ban, he is prohibited by the government from “associating with those parishioners, listening to messages, or in participating in those religious exercises.”

“The public continues to be invited to USD 497 public events which are public forums,” the lawsuit reads. “This Count implicates two distinct First Amendment interests: Dr. Spiehs right to engage in speech and his right to receive information through attendance at the USD 497 public events including church services in which the public is invited to attend.”

The fourth cause of action highlights content and viewpoint discrimination, claiming his speech has been suppressed due to his prior and present viewpoints.

“The defendants’ respective actions targeted certain viewpoints on a subject matter such as defendant Lewis, USD 497 students and staff,” the lawsuit reads. “Defendants have targeted Dr. Spiehs’ particular views on those topics for disparate and adverse treatment. Defendants restricted and punished Dr. Spiehs’ views because they didn’t like him and because of their respective specific motivating ideology, opinion, and perspective.”

The fifth cause of action notes a violation of freedom of speech declaratory and injunctive relief as applied challenge. In this section, the lawsuit claims that the speaking policy of the board has been applied to Dr. Spiehs in a “discriminatory and disparate fashion.” This section notes how Dr. Spiehs’ speech was suppressed when speaking negatively on issues while those who were at meetings to speak more positively were encouraged to speak.

Finally, the lawsuit notes a violation of freedom of speech declaratory and injunctive relief facial challenge. This section notes “unconstitutionally vague” wording of policies.

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dr. Spiehs is demanding a trial by Jury on all causes of action.