District Judge o f th e E asternDistrict o f Loui sian a, sittin g bydesi gn atio n. * 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40833

J U L IE F A IR C H IL D , Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant

v. L I BE RT YI N DE P END ENT S CHOO L DI S T RI CT ; MONA C HADWI CK , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h e r o f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y a s S u p e r i n d e n t e nde n t ; BRUCE L A C E F I E L D , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n h i s o f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y a s P r i n c i p a l ; T OM C O N N E LL Y , I ndi vi dual l y Capaci t y; JE SS I C A B A R R I E R LA N I E R , I ndi vi dual C ap a ci ty; F R A N KD A V IS , In d i vid u a lC a p a ci ty; W I LL I A M B E D N A R , I ndi vi dual Capac i t y; KAR EN J O H N SO N , I ndi vi dua lCapa c i t y; M AT TH EW H AR RI S, O ffic ia l C a p a c ity , D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ct of T exas

Be fo r e H I GGI NBO T HAM a n d S T EWART , C i r c u i t J u d g e s , a n d F EL DMAN, * D i st ri ct Ju dg e. P A T R IC KE
. H IG G IN B O T H A M , C i rcui t Ju dg e: Ju l i e F ai rchi l d – assert i n g t h at t h e L ib e rty I n dep en den t Sch ool D i st ri ct United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

F airchil d al s o has thre e childre n who durin g the releva nt time perio d attende d 1 Di strictsch oo ls

. T he D istric t maintains that it fir ed F airchil d for creating a classro om environme nt 2 not co nduc ive to lear ning. The District adopte d DGBA (Loc al) and BE C (Legal) in an effort to c omplywithth e 3 Tex as OpenMeeting s Act. Th e Act ma ndat es th at “[e]v eryregular, speci al, or c all ed mee ting of agovern me nt b odysh allb e op ent o th e pub lic, ” subj ec t tov a ri ou s e xce ptio n s. T EX . G O VT . C ODE § 551 .002 . On e exce ptionregar ds employe e-on -employee complaints an d reads: “This 2 had i nf r i nge d he r c o ns t i t ut i o nal l y protec t ed s pe e c h –s ue d t he D i s t r i c t a nd severalof

i t s of f i ci al s. Sh e cl ai m ed the D i st ri ct – af t er f i ri n g h er – di d n ot al l ow h er at a school board m eet i n g t o present h er si de of her t roub l es w i t h a t each er f or w h om she h ad been an a i de, is sues t h en on an al t erna t i ve- t rack revi ew bef ore consi derati on by the B oard. T h e d i st ri ct cou rt g ran t ed t h e d efen da n t s s u m m ary j udg m e nt o n a l lc l ai m s , a nd F ai r c hi l d a ppe al e d. W e a f f i r m t he j udg m e nt b ut trav el a som ew h a t dif feren t pa th tha n did the distri ct cou rt.

I
. Fai r c hi l d w orked fort he D i s t r i c t a s a t e ac he r ’ s a i de f o r s pe c i alne e ds
c hi l dr e n i n J e s s i c a Bar r i e r L ani e r ’ s cl as s r o o m . The t w o di d notge t al o ng, a nd 1 th e D is tr ic t e v e n tu a lly fir e d F a ir c h ild in M a y o f 2 0 0 5 . T h e n e x t d a y , F a ir c h ild subm i t t ed a p ost-t er m i nat i on gr i evanc e. She al l ege d t hat t he D i st r i c t had t er m i nat ed heri n re t al i at i on f orac c usi ng B ar r i erLani erof s uch t hi ngs as overdosi n g chi l dren w i t h p resc ri pti on m edi ci n e, l i f t i n g a severel y h an di capp ed st u den t by h er hai r and bel t l oops, an d s h opp i n g f or h er w edd i n g du ri n g school t i m e. 2 T w o D i s t r i c t po l i c i e s , D G BA ( Loc al) a nd BEC ( Leg al) , g o ve r n e m pl oyee concerns an d gri evan ces. D G B A (Local) requ i res em pl oyees to f ol l ow a t h ree- 3 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

ch a pt erd oe s notr equ ir e asch oo l b oard to co n du ct a n op en me etin g tod elib er a tei nac a se. . . inwhich a c omplaint or char geis brou ght a gainst an employee of th e sch ool di s trict by a n oth er em pl oyeea n d th e co mp laint orc h a rge dire ctlyr es u lt s inan ee d fo r ah eari n g .” T EX . G O VT . C ODE § 551 .082
. 3 tie r e d a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e s s in w h ic h th e s c h o o l b o a r d fo r t h e f ir s t tim e d ir e c tly h ears and del i berates on t h e m att er a t L e v elI II
. Per B E C ( L egal) , t h e B oard
w i l lhea r t h e em pl oyee concern i n cl osed sess i on , un l ess t h e target of t h e concern dem ands a publ i c hear i ng. At Le ve lI Fai r c hi l d a l l e ge d t hat t he D i s t r i c t ha d t e r m i nat e d he r f o r t r yi ng t o bl ow th e w h i st l e on B arri er La n i er; t h at s h e posed a d an ger t o t h e chi l dren
a n d s h o u ld b e fir e d

. T h e D is tr ic t d e n ie d F a ir c h ild ’ s L e v e l I g r ie v a n c e . F a ir c h ild t he n pr o gr e s s e d o n t w o pa r al l e l t r ac ks – o ne w i t hi n t he D i s t r i c t a nd o ne o ut s i de of i t. S h e fi l ed f

or a L ev el I I h ea ri n g, an d , after fail i n g to rea ch an ag ree m en t,
s h e re q u e s te d a L e v e l I I I ( a n d fin a l) h e a r in g . In th e m e a n tim e , F a ir c h ild report ed B arri er La n i er t o C h i l d P rot ect i ve S ervi ces, an d beg an a p a rents’ pe t i t i o n a s ki ng t he D i s t r i c t t o be m o r e f o r t hc o m i ng w i t h i nf

o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng speci al need s c h i l dren – an d d em an di n g t h at t h e D i st ri ct not r et al i ate agai n st anye m pl o ye e w ho s har e s i nf o r m at i o n a bo ut a n e nda nge r e d c hi l d. A l l of th i s c am e t o a he ad o n Augus t 1 6, 2 00 5. Tha t ni ght , t he D i s t ri ct h e l d a s c h o o lb o a r d me e t i n g . A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f i t s m e e t i n g s , t h e Bo a r d a l l o ws pub l i c c o m m e nt o n Boa r d b us i ne s s . I t r e s o l ves no di s put e s a t t hi s o pe ni ng com m en t ses si on an d d eci des n o qu est i on s. R ather, i ssues requi ri n g resol u t i on
m u st proceed t h rough al t erna t i ve cha n n el s. W h en com m en t ary m oves t o i ssues
w i t h na m ed teachers ori n di vid u al em pl oyees, t h e B oard n ot es i t as m att er beyon d the scope of

t h e open i n g sess i on , an d the speak er m u st f i rstproceed t h rough an al t erna t i ve process. T h i s d eci si on steer s aw ay p ersonal gri evan ces Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

4 o r e x a m in a tio n s of i n d i vid u a lpe rform a n ce, b oth of w h ic h w o u ld n e c e s s ita te re p ly
an d a f rustr ati on of t h e B oard’ s agen da

. Ital so avoi ds a f rustr ati on of

t h e pol i cy o f n o t h e a r in g p e r s o n n e l (in c lu d in g e m p lo y e e -o n -e m p lo y e e ) g r ie v a n c e s in p u b lic ab s e nt t he c o ns e nt o f t he e m pl o ye e w ho s e pe r f o r m anc e i s q ue s t i o ne d. Af t e r t he
o pe ni n g c o m m e nt s e s s i o n, t he Boa r d m o ve s t o t he r e m ai nde r o f i t s m e e t i ng agen da – som et i m es i n open an d som et i m es i n executi ve sess i on s. The Boar d s c he dul e d Fai r c hi l d t o s pe ak dur i ng t he c o m m e nt s e s s i o n o f t he Augus t 1 6 m e e t i ng t o a l l o w he r t o pr e s e nt he r pe t i t i o n. Fai r c hi l d ha d t o s i gn a s ta te m e n t a c k n o w le d g in g th a t: “[A ]n y is s u e s p e r ta in in g to
. . . s p e c ific

. . . di st ri ct personn el

. . . m ay n ecess i t a te a c los ed sessi on . ” Sh e ha d to f u rt h er ackn ow l edg e, “ T h i s c om m en t peri od i s not i n t en ded f or t h e presentat i on of
com pl ai n t s. T h e B oard w i l l on l y consi der com pl ai n t s t h at rem ai n u n re sol ved af t e r t he y hav e b e e n a ddr e s s e d t hr o ugh pr o pe r a dm i ni s t r at i ve chan n el s a nd
w h e n th e y h a v e b e e n p la c e d o n th e a g e n d a .” A d d i t i o n a lly , th e D is tr ic t h a s in p l a ce a n en forcem en t rule w h i ch go ve rn s allpu b l i c m ee ti n gs ; i t st a tes i n pa rt:

T h e B oard s h al l n ot t ol erat e di srupti on of t h e m eet i n g by m em bers o f t he a udi e nc e . I f, a f t e r a t l e as t on e w ar ni ng f r o m t he pr e s i di ng of f i cer, an y person con t i n u es t o di srupt th e m eet i n g by h i s orher w ords or act i on s, the presi di n g of f i cer m ay requ est a ssi st an ce f rom l aw enf o r c e m e nt o f

f i ci al s t o ha ve t he pe r s o n r e m o ve d f r o m t he m ee t i ng. A t t h e sa m e m ee ti n g, t h e B o a r d d ecide d to h old F a i rch i l d ’ s L ev el I II gri evan ce heari n g, w h i ch w ou l d com m en ce aft er the open ses si on . A s r equ i red b y B E C (L e g a l), th e L e v e l II I g r ie v a n c e w o u ld clo s e , th is b e c a u s e F a ir c h ild
s o u g h t t o le v e l ch a r g e s a g a in s t B a r r ie r L a n ie r . Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

T EX . G O VT . C ODE § 551 .074
. 4 5 B u t F ai rchi l d requ est ed a d i f ferent proc edu re – a h eari n g an d d eci si on on her LevelI I I appeali n t he o pen s es si on o f t he m ee t i ng. She c i t ed t he Texas O p en M ee ti n gs A ct: “T h i s ch a p ter d oe s n ot req u i re a go ve rn m en tal bod y to
con d u ct an op en m ee ti n g to d eli b era te the ap p oin tm en t, em p l oy m en t,
e v a lu a tio n , re a s s ig n m e n t, d u ti e s , d is c ip lin e , o r d is m is s a l o f a p u b lic

. . . em pl oyee . . . [ u n l ess] t h e . . . em pl oyee w h o i s t h e subj ect of t h e del i berati on or h eari n g requ est s a pu bl i c heari n g. ” E ven thou gh sh e sough t w i t h her gri evan ce 4 t o a t t a c k B a r r i e r L a n i e r , F a i r c h i l d c o n t e n d e d t h a t h e r h e a r i n g b o r e o n h e r o wn fi ri n g. T h a t i s, sh e w a s th e “su b j ect” of a n eg a ti ve em p l oy m en t “ d eli b era ti on ” – and s he de m and e d a n o pe n s e s s i o n. The D i s t r i c t c o m pr o m i s e d –t e l l i ng F a i rch i l d tha t sh e cou l d h a ve h er p u b l i c h ea ri n g b u t t h a t, i f i t m ov ed to
e m p l o y e e - o n - e m p l o y e e c o nc e r ns , t h e s e s s i o n wo u l d c l o s e p u r s u a n t t o BEC (L e g a l). U l t i m atel y, du ri n g t h e A u gu st 16 m ee t i ng Fai r c hi l d p r e s e nt ed h er pet i t i on i n t h e com m en t ses si on w i t h ou t i n t errupti on – n ot m en t i on i n g school em pl oyees by nam e. She al so had her LevelI I I gr i evanc e i n t he c l os ed s es si on, as s c he dul e d. The r e , Fai r c hi l d m ad e he r c o m pl ai nt s a ga i ns t B arr i e r Lani e r a nd
s o ugh t t o “ c l e ar ” he r o w n na m e . I n t he e nd, t he D i s t r i c t de ni e d t he r e l i e f s o ugh t i n t he pos t
- t er m i nat i on gr i evanc e he ar i ng.
II. Fa i r c h i l d b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n fe d e r a ld i s t r i c t c o u r t t o c o n t e s t t he pr o c e dur e s us e d a t t h e A u gus t 1 6 Boar d m e e t i ng. She a l l e ge d t hat : ( 1) t he D i st ri ct h a d m i si n t erpret ed the T exas O pen M eet i n gs A ct , becau se t h e A ct Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Thatis, only the abovecl aims 4, 5 , an d 6 remai n. 5 See Berq uistv. W

ashin gton Mut . Bank , 5 0 0F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 8 -4 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 6 6 r e q u ir e s a p u b lic g r ie v a n c e h e a r in g ; (2 ) in th e a lte r n a tiv e , th e A c t is
u n consti t u t i on al as app l i ed to h er i n t h at i t cl osed h er L e v e l I II gri evan ce h e a r in g ; (3 ) th e D is tr ic t h a d r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h e r fo r t r y in g t o b lo w th e w h is tle
on B arri er La n i er; ( 4) t h e D i st ri ct ’ s pu bl i c c om m en t rul es, coll ect i vel y cal l ed BE D ( Loc al) , w hi c h s he c l ai m s do no t a l l o w pa r en t s i n t he o pe ni ng c o m m e nt
s e s s i o n t o c o m pl ai n a ga i ns t t e ac he r s , a r e fac i al l y unc o ns t i t ut i o nal ; ( 5) t he D i stri ct’ s p oli ci es D G B A ( L oca l ) a n d B E C (L eg a l ) violate th e F i rst A m en d m en t, both on t h ei r face an d as ap pl i ed to F airc h i l d’ s post
- t erm i n ati on gri evan ce hear i ng; and ( 6) t he i ndi vi dual D i st r i c t adm i ni st r at or s and tea ch ers had d e p r iv e d h e r o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l (F ir s t A m e n d m e n t) r ig h ts a n d s h o u ld b e h e ld l i abl e under § 1983. T h rough th e course of m u l t i pl e vol u m i n ou s m ot i on s, t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en t t o al ldefen da n t s on al lcl ai m s. O n app eal , t h ere rem ai n s onl y a faci al chal l en ge t o t h e rul es concerni n g t h e com m en t ses si on of t h e B oard m eet i n g an d both a faci a l a n d as- ap pl i ed cha l l en ge t o t h e cl osi n g of Fai r c hi l d’ s gr i evanc e he ar i ng. 5 O ur r e vi e w i s de no vo , and w e m ay af f i r m a gr anto f

s um m ar y j udg m e nt
on an y groun ds sup ported by t h e recor d – i n cl u di n g groun ds di f ferent t h an t h ose reli ed u p on by the distri ct cou rt. 6 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

We– like the liti ga nts – use BED (Local) a s a stand-in for the District’s ge neral po licy 7 of ch ann eli ngdisputes fro m thecomment sessio n of B oard meetin gs, abse nt agreement to public discussio n byth e targe ted pe rson. See ElkGrove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdo w , 5 4 2 U .S

. 1 , 1 1 -1 2 ( 2 0 0 4). 8 Seei d

. at 12. 9 Croft v. Govern or of Tex

. , 562 F.3d 735, 745 (5th Cir. 2009) (c itin g Lu jan v. Defen ders 10 of W ild life , 5 0 4U .S

. 5 5 5 , 5 6 0 -6 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ))

. 7 III.

A. W e b e g i n wi t h F a i r c h i l d ’ s fa c i a l a t t a c k o n t h e c o m m e n t s e s s i o n r u l e s , BED ( L ocal )

. Th e di st ri ct court gran t ed su m m ary ju d g m en t t o t h e defen da n t s,

7 per suade d Fai r c hi l d had not show n t he i nj ury es se nt i alt o Art i c l e I I I s t andi ng. W e hol d t ha t Fa i r c hi l d h a s s t a nd i ngt o b r i ngh e r Fi r s t Am e nd m e ntfa c i al cha l l en ge t o the com m en t p ort i on of the B oard m eet i n g an d aff i rm t h e sum m ary j u dg m en t on the m eri t s.
i. A plain ti ff

m u st m ee t both the con sti tu ti on a lde m a n d s of A rticle III st andi ng as w el las i nst r um ental prudent i alc onc er ns. Prudent i al 8
c o ns i de r at i o ns a r e j udi c i al l y- i m po s e d a nd a r e s e e n a s j ur i s di c t i o nali n r e ac h. 9 A rti cl e III “ stan d i n g h a s th ree elem en ts: (1) a n ‘ i nj u ry i n fact’ th a t i s ( a ) con crete
an d p art i cul ari zed an d (b) act u al or i m m i n en t ; ( 2) a cau sal conn ect i on betw een th e inju r y a n d t h e co n d u c t c o m p la in e d o f; a n d (3 ) th e lik e lih o o d th a t a fa v o r a b le d e c is io n w ill re d r e s s th e inju r y .” 10 I n F i r stA m endm ent fac i alc hal l enges , f ede r al c our t s r el ax t he pr udent i al Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Secret ary of Md . v. J

osephH. Munson Co. , 4 6 7U .S

. 9 4 7 , 9 5 6 -5 8( 1 9 8 4). 11 See id. at95 8. 12 Ho uston Chron ic lePubl. Co. v. City of LeagueCity , 488 F.3 d 61 3, 6 18 (5thC ir. 2 007) 13 (c itin g Meese v. Keen e , 4 8 1 U. S. 465, 473 (1987) ); see a lso Elrod v. B urns , 42 7 U .S. 34 7, 3 73 (197 6) (“Th e l oss of First Amendment fre edoms, foreven mi ni m alperiods o f time , u n qu es ti on ab lyc on stitu te s irr ep a rab lei n j u ry .”). R . at29 59-6 0. 14 See R. at 306 0-61
. 15 8 l i m i t at i ons and a l l ow ye t
- unh ar m ed l i t i gant s t o a t t ac k pot ent i al l y o ver br oad st atutes – “to p revent t h e st atute f rom chi l l i n g t h e F i rstA m en dm en t ri gh t s of
o t he r pa r t i e s no t b e f o r e t he c o ur t
. ” At t he s am e t i m e , Ar t i c l e I I I s t and i ng 11
r e t ai ns r i go r e ve n i n a n o ve r br e ad t h cl ai m . The de fe nda nt s a l l e ge , a nd t he 12 d i stri ct cou rt f

ou n d , tha t F a i rch i l d h a d n ot sh ow n the req u i sit e inju r y -in -fa ct. W e di sagree. “C h il li n g a p la in tiff

’ s sp e e ch is a c o n stitu tion a l h a rm a d e q u a te to s a tisfy th e inju r y -in -fa c t r e q u ir e m e n t.” F a i rch i l d all eg es th a t B E D ( L oca l) ch ills p u b lic 13
s pe e c h b y f

o r bi ddi ng t he di s c l o s ur e o f i nf o r m at i o n a bo ut s pe c i f i c t e ac he r s dur i ng ope n B oar d m ee t i ngs. M or e t o t he poi nt , Fai r c hi l d as se r t s t hat she had t o r ei gn i n her ow n speech du rin g th e A u gu st 16 com m en t ses si on . A sked i n her dep osi t i on , “ [ I] s t h ere any t h i n g t h at you didn’ t get t o say t o t h e sc h ool board dur i ng t he [Augus t 16] ope n m e e t i ng t hatyo u w ant e d t o s ay ? ” She r e s po nde d,

“ Y es, I w o ul d l i ke t o hav e us e d t he [ t e ac he r s ’ ] nam e s . . . and t he y w o ul d n ot
a llo w m e a n y o f

th e n a m e s o r a n y o f th a t.” T h e D is tr ic t c o n c e d e s F a ir c h ild 14
w ou l d n ot ha ve b e e n a l l o w e d d ur i ng t he c o m m e nt s e s s i o n pr e s e nt at i o n o f her pa r e nt s ’ pe t i t i o n t o a t t ac k t he w o r k o f t he t e ac he r w ho m s he ha d a i de d. 15 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

In t’ l Soc. fo r K

rishn a C

onsc iousn ess v. Eaves , 60 1 F .2d 8 09, 818 ( 5t h Cir. 19 79) 16 (citation s omitt ed). A fair readingof therec ord supports Fairchild’s asserti on that shewanted publiclyto nameDistrict e mployees. Infac t, there is a cl ear nexus b etweenF airchil d’s L ev el II I gri ev anc e (i n wh ic h s he d id mentio n BarrierL ani er b y name) an d th e pe titio n she presented in the comment portio n of the Board meetin g. In her gri ev anc e h earingF airchil d all eged th at the District had fired her for t elling ana dmini stratorth at BarrierL ani er enda ngers th e spec ia l ne ed s childre n. Not coincidentally, oneof the items o n her petiti on urged th e District to“[i]ssu e adir ective to all schoo l administrat ors that they may not fire

.

. . a nyemploye e . . . b ecau se th e e mployee . . . provides info rmatio n conc erninga child with special n eeds . . . to a n administrat or o f th e Libe rtyI SD . . . .” R . at12 2.

Miss. State Democrat ic P art y v. Barb our , 52 9 F .3d 5 38, 545(5th Cir. 2 008) (cit atio ns 17 om itte d)

. Wedo not fault the abl e di strict court forcomi ngto a c ontr aryconclu sion . I ndee d, 18 alth ough Fairchild asserted that sheh ad suffered an inj ury , shen ev er – even uponpro mpting – po inte d th e di strict court toproper record evidence to support standi ng . Inin depen dently reviewin g the fullsummary ju dgment re cord, thou gh , we fi nd the standingqu estionto be base d onevidence “we could not i gn ore . . . ev en thou ghth e parties did not po int the evidence out and the distric t court had not consi dered it.” See Joh n v. Louisian a (Bd. of Trust ees) , 75 7 F .2 d 6 9 8 , 7 1 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 5 ). Here, Fairchild does not make anas-applie d c ha ll en geto the comment session 19 pr oce dur e – BED (Loc al) . Later, she chal lenges the emp loym ent grie vance pr oce dur e – DG BA (Loc al) – b oth faciallyan d as-applie d. 9 Fai r c hi l d ha s s at i s fac t o r i l y s ho w n t hats he i s “ s e r i o us l y i n t er e s t e d i n” 16
en ga gin g “i n a cou rse of con d u ct a rg u a b l y aff ected w i th a co n sti tu ti on a li n teres t, butpr o s c r i be d b y s t at ut e , ” a s uf f i c i e nt Cons t i t ut i o nali nj ur y. W e t ur n t o t he 17
m e rits of h e r fa cia l atta ck on th e co m m e n t se ss ion ru les , B E D (L o ca l). 18

ii. F a i rch i l d see k s an i nj u n cti on to p r e v e n t th e D i stri ct f rom en forci n g it s B E D (L o c a l) p o li c y . S h e b r in g s o n ly a c la im o f fa c ia l in v a li d it y . “[A ] c o u r t ’s 19 f i r s t t as k i s t o de t e r m i ne w he t he r t he e nac t m e nt r e ac he s a s ubs t ant i ala m o unt of con stitu tio n a l l y p rotecte d con d u ct. If i t do es n ot, the n the ov erb rea d th Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Hoffman E

st ates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates , 4 5 5 U .S

. 4 8 9 , 4 9 4( 1 9 8 2 ). 20 Id

. at49 4-95
. 21 Id

. at 494 n.5 (c itin g Grayned v. Cityof Rock

ford , 4 0 8 U
. S

. 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ) (“ [W]e 22 must e xtr apol ate [the ordin anc e’s] allo w ab le meaning . Her e, we are rele gated t o th e words of th e or di n a n ce it se lf

, to th e inte rp re tati on s th e co u rt b el ow h a s givent o a n alo gou s s tatute s, and, perhaps to some de gre e, toth e inte rpretation of the statut e give n by thosech arged with enfo rcin g it. Extrapo lati on, of co urse, is a d el ic ate task, for it is n ot withinour po wer to co n stru e a n d n a rr ow st a te laws. ”) (citati on s an d pu n ctu a ti ono mitt ed)) ; see also Hill v. Cityof Houston , 78 9 F .2d 1 103 , 11 23 (5th Cir. 198 6) (en banc) (Higgi nbo tha m, J., dissenting) (citing B ro ad ri ckv . Ok lah om a , 413 U.S. 6 01, 613(19 73)) (“[I]f the challe nged l aw h as b een , or coul d be, authoritative lycon s t r ued so a s to remove a nyrealistic threatof unc onstituti onal applicati on, the ov erbr eadth doctri ne may not be used to declare the law unc onstituti onal o n it s f a ce .”). 10 cha l l en ge m u st fail

. ” I f t h e ordi n an ce passes t h e overbreadth tes t , t h e court 20
m o ve s t o “ e xa m i ne t he fac i alvag ue ne s s cha l l e nge and, as s um i ng t he e nac t m e nt i m pl i c at es no c ons t i t ut i onal l y pr ot ec t ed c onduct , s houl d uphol d t he c hal l enge o n ly if th e e n a c tm e n t is im p e r m is s ib ly v a g u e in a ll o f its a p p lic a tio n s .” 21 W e m u st st art b y determ i n i n g exactl y w h at the pol i cy entai l s. I n doi n g so,
w e f i nd t hatBE D ( Loc al) i s a m e nab l e t o a pr o f fe r e d l i m i t i ng c o ns t r uc t i o n. The 22 BE D ( L o c a l ) w r i t t e n p o l i c y s t a t e s u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g P u b l i c C o mme n t : “At
r e gul arm e e t i ngs , t he Boa r d s hal l al l o t t i m e t o he ar pe r s o ns w ho de s i r e t o m ak e com m en t s t o t h e B oard. ” Th e po li cy f u rt h er expl ai n s how t h e B oard m u st respond du ri n g t h e com m en t sess i on : “ S peci f i c fact u al i n f

orm ati on or reci t ati on o f e x is tin g p o lic y m a y b e fu r n is h e d in re s p o n s e to in q u ir ie s , b u t th e B o a r d s h a ll
no t de l i be r at e o r de c i de r e ga r di ng anys ubj e c t t hati s no t i nc l ude d o n t he a ge nda po s t e d wi t h not i c e of t he m e e t i ng. ” Reg ar di ng Com pl ai nt s a nd Co nc e r ns : “ The pr e s i di ng o f

f i c e r o r de s i gne e s hal lde t e r m i ne w he t he r a pe r s o n a ddr e s s i ng t he B oard h as a ttem pted t o sol ve a m att er adm i n i st rat i vel y t h rough res ol u t i on c hann e l s e s t ab l i s he d b y po l i c y. I f no t , t he pe r s o n s hal lb e r e fe r r e d t o t he Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

R . at36 12. 23 See R. at 294 5. As part of her facial challe nge, Fairchild argues that apolicycalle d 24 FNG (Local) contrib utes to the unc onstituti onalityof BE D (Lo cal). F NG (Lo cal) provides for a three -tiere d parent s’ griev anc e process – similar to the administrativ e process provided for employee gri ev an c es. Fairchild clai ms that – incontrast to Davi s’s explan atio n – wh en pare ntsse ekgen eric allyt o co mp laini nth e co mme nt sess ion, BE D (L oc al) f orce s th es e complaints intoanextende d F NG (Lo cal) remedial process. Althou ghBED (Local) does say th a t pare nt co n ce rn s “s h all b e re fe rr ed” to F NG (Loc al) , “r ef erri n g” do es n otme a n“ sile n ci n g .” BE D (Lo cal) prev ents the Board fro m acting durin g t he comment sessio n, soF NG (Lo cal) actu ally assists th e parent s inseeki ng resolution – by pointing them to an outl et at whichth e Board ca n deliberate. Nothingonth e face o f B ED (Local) say s that parent s cannot at the comment sessionair th eir conc erns and thensub sequ ently pursueF NG (Lo cal). Thatis, the comment session and FNG (Local) ar e n ot mutuallyexclu sive

. Th e comment session sign -in sheetis not to the contrary. Th e paper reads: “This co mment perio d is not inte nded for the presentati on of complaints. The Board will o nlycon sider complaints that re mainu nreso lv ed aft er the y have been addr es se d thr ough pr ope r adm inis tra tive channels and when they have bee n place d on the age nda.” On its face, thi s note merelycommunicates the BE D (Loc al) rul e that th e Board can not deliberate o r take ac tiondurin g the comment session. The sign -in sheet is n ot athreator a warni ng– rath er, it explai ns the limit s of the Board’s po wer. Th e B oard can“listen” tocompl aints d ur in g the comment session, butitca nno t “de lib erat e o n” or “c on si de r”th em .

See R. at 154 6. 25 11 a p p r o p r ia te p o lic y . . . to s e e k re s o lu tio n .” D u ri n g h i s dep osi t i on , B oard presi den t F ran k A

. D avis – a l ocalm i n i st er i n Li be r t y, Te xa s –e xpl ai n ed t h e nuanc e s o f t he w r i t t e n po l i c y. Dur i ng t he open i n g sess i on , th e resi den t s c an present c om m en t s hav i n g t o do w i t h B oard bu si n ess. H e described t h at t h e B oard’ s “ du t y t h ere i s t o l i st en an d w e do n ot d e l i b e r a t e . ” T h e Bo a r d –d e s p i t e Fa i r c h i l d ’ s a s s e r t i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a r y –a l l o ws

23 t h e pu bl i c t o voi ce c on cerns and com pl ai n t s, j u st n ot i f t h e “ com pl ai n t i n vol ve[ s]
n am i n g of

peop l e” – em pl oyees or st u den t s. T h i s rul e dovetai l s w i t h an ot h er 24 of t h e B oard’ s defau l t pol i ci es t o di scuss beh i n d c l osed doors “ P ersonn elM att ers” – i n cl u di n g “ t h e app oi n t m en t , em pl oym en t , eval u ati on , re assi gn m en t , du t i es, d is c ip lin e , o r d is m is s a l o f a p u b lic

. . . e m p lo y e e . . . .” 25 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

R . at32 22-2 3. 26 R . at37 52. 27 See R. at 387 2. 28 Fri sby v. Schul tz , 48 7 U .S. 47 4, 4 83 (198 8). Th e Supreme Court i n Frisbyado pted 29 a limiti ngconstruc tionw henthe “narro w reading[w as] supported byth e re presentati ons of coun sel for the town at oralar gu ment.” Id

. I nth isc a se , th e B oardp re si de nt

– a n d n otj u st his lawy er –

exp la in ed the narrowness of th e District po licy . Mo re i mportantly , Davis’s 12 Exp e r i e n c e c o n f

i r m s Da v i s ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . F a i r c h i l d c o m pl ai ne d d ur i ng t h e com m en t ses si on w i t h ou t i n t errupti on . Indeed , t h e peti t i on she presented
a sse rted tha t pa ren ts “ rea son a b l y b eli ev e[d] tha t w e h a ve be en d en i ed a cces s to i m portant i n f

orm a tion concerni n g [ speci al need s] chi l dren

. ” Fa i rchi l d even dem anded t hat t he B oar d “ [ i ] ss ue a di r ec t i ve t o a l l s ch oo ladm i ni st r at or s t hat t h ey m a y n o t fire

. . . an y em pl oyee . . . becau se t h e em pl oyee . . . provi des in fo r m a tio n co n c e r n in g a ch ild w ith s p e c ia l n e e d s . . . to a n a d m in is tr a to r . . . .” 26 A fam i l i ar ex h ort ati on , as Fa i rchi l d cl ai m ed that t h e D i st ri ct ha d f i red her f

or s h a r in g in fo r m a tio n a b o u t d a n g e r s to s p e c ia l n e e d s s tu d e n ts
. B e c a u s e F a ir c h ild di d no t di vul ge per s o nal l y i de nt i f i ab l e i nf

o r m at i o n at t he c o m m e nt s e s s i o n, t he B oard – w h i ch i n t erpret ed F ai rchi l d’ s s peech as a p a re n t “ co n cern” – nev er 27 i nt e r r upt e d he r p rese nt at i o n o f c o m pl ai nt s . Addi t i o nal l y, a no t he r c i t i z e n – G l enda H el l er– t w i c e a t B oar d m ee ti n gs com pl ai ned t hat t he D i st r i c t ’ s hi gh school di d n ot ha ve ad equ ate w h eel cha i r acc essi bili ty. W i t h no B oard in te r fe r e n c e , s h e ch a lle n g e d th e B o a r d to n e g o tia te th e s c h o o l g r o u n d s in
w h eel cha i rs. 28 R es ponsi ve to t he “ w el l

- es t abl i she d pr i nci pl e t hat s t at ut es w i l lbe i nt er pre t ed t o avoi d c ons t i t ut i onal di f f i c ul t i es , ” w e dec l i ne t o r ea d the t ext
e x p a n s iv e ly

. R a th e r , w e a g r e e w ith th e B o a r d ’ s co n s tr u c tio n . B E D (L o c a l) 29 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

explan atio ns de rive l ogicallyfrom the lite ral text of the policies, a ndF ai rchild pr esent s no contradictoryevidence.

Chiu v. PlanoIndep. Sch. D is t. , 2 6 0F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 30 Seei d . at34 4-45
. 31 Ha gue v. Comm . fo r Indus. Org. , 30 7 U .S. 49 6, 5 15 (193 9) (“Whe rev ert he t itleof 32 streets and parks mayrest, theyhav e immemoriallybe en hel d intru st for the use of th e public and , ti m eo u to f

m i n d , h av eb e e nu s e df o rp u r p o s e s o f

a s s e m b ly , c o m m u ni c a t i n gth o u ghts betwee n citi zen s, an d discu ssingpublic questi ons. Suchus e of t he streets and public plac es has, from a nci ent times, b eena part of th e privile ge s, immunitie s, rights, a ndliberties of citi z en s.”); Ch iu , 26 0 F .3d at 3 44. 13 open s a ses si on f

or t h e pu bl i c t o ai r c on cerns abou t B oard bu si n ess – bu t itis not
an occ asi on f

or resol u t i on of persona l di sagreem en t w i t h em pl oyees. Th ose m u st f i rstproceed throu gh a n a l t erna t i ve process w h ere they w i l lei t h er be r esol ved
o r s har pe ne d f

o r Boa r d r e s o l ut i o n.

a . W e s t ar t w i t h ove r br eadt h, aski ng i f B E D ( Local) i nf

r i nges a s ubst ant i al
am o unt o f

pr o t e c t e d s pe e c h. I n do i ng s o , w e m us t i de nt i f y t he t yp e o f f

o r um t he
o pe ni ng s e s s i o n r e pr e s e nt s , b e c aus e “ o ur de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he c har ac t e r o f

t he fo r u m in w h ic h e x p r e s s io n w a s r e g u la te d s h a p e s o u r d e te r m in a tio n w h e th e r . . . a co n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n o c c u r r e d .” 30 T h ere ar e th ree c ategori es of f orum s, onl y t h e f

i rstt w o of

w h i ch are
r e le v a n t h e r e : (1 ) tr a d itio n a l a n d d e s ig n a te d p u b lic fo r u m s ; (2 ) l i m i t e d p u b lic f o r um s ; a nd ( 3) no npub l i c f o r um s . Trad i t i on al pu bl i c f orum s i n cl u de si dew al ks, 31
s tr e e ts , a n d p a r k s th a t t h e p u b lic s in c e t im e im m e m o r ia l h a s u s e d fo r a s s e m b ly
a n d ge n era lcom m u n i ca tio n . T h e sta te can also i n ten ti on a l l y cre a te 32

“ desi gn ated” pu bl i c f orum s on ot h er s t ate propert y f or t h e sam e w i desp read u se Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Ch iu , 26 0 F .3d at 3 45. 33 Id

. at34 4-45
. 34 Id

. at 3 4 6(citi n g G ood News Club v. Milford C ent . Sch. , 5 3 3U .S

. 9 8 , 1 0 6( 2 0 0 1 ); 35 Rosen berger v. Rector &Visitors of t he Univ. of Va. , 5 1 5 U .S

. 8 1 9 , 8 2 9( 1 9 9 5 ))

.

Id

. at 346 (cit ing Good News Club , 5 3 3U .S

. a t 1 0 6) (qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed); see 36 also P erryEdu c . Ass’n v. Perr y Local Educato rs’ Ass’n , 46 0 U .S. 37 , 46(19 83) (“[T]h e St ate mayrese rveth e fo rum for its intende d purposes, co mmunic ative o r otherwise , as lon g as th e re gu lati ono nsp ee chi s r ea so n ab lea n d n ota ne ff ort tosu pp re ss expr es sion me re lyb ec a u se pub lic of fici also pp os e th e sp eake r’ s vie w.”). Rosen berger , 51 5 U .S. at83 0. 37 See Ch iu , 26 0 F .3d at 3 46 (“Th ough the Supre me C ourtn ow cle arlydistinguish es 38 designat ed public forums subje ct tostrict scrutinyfrom limit ed public forums th at are not, the lin e se parati n gth e twoc a te gorie s r em ain s u n de fi n ed .”).

Lam b’sChape l v. Center Mo ri che s Uni on FreeSch. D is t. , 5 0 8U .S

. 3 8 4 , 3 9 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ). 39 14 as tradi t i on al p u bl i c f orum s. R egu l ati on of speech i n t radi t i on al or desi gn ated

33 pub l i c f o r um s m us t pa s s s t r i c t s c r ut i ny w i t h a c o m pe l l i ng s t at e i nt e r e s t a nd
narr ow t ai l or i ng. 34 L im i t e d p u b lic fo r u m s –a s th e n a m e s u g g e s ts –p r o v id e “fo r p u b lic expr es si on of

part i c ul ar k i nds or by par t i c ul ar gro ups. ” Th e gove r nm ent m ay 35 rest ri ct speech i n these l i m i t ed pu bl i c f orum s, as l on g as t h e regul ati on “ ( 1) does
n o t d is c r im in a te a g a in s t s p e e c h o n th e b a s is o f v ie w p o in t a n d (2 ) is re a s o n a b le i n l i gh t of

t h e pu rpose ser ved by the f orum . ” A r e st ri ct i on based on subj ect

36
m a tt e r “m a y b e p e r m is s ib le if it p r e s e r v e s th e p u r p o s e s o f th a t lim ite d fo r u m .” 37 T h e act i on – i n t h i s case an d m ost ot h ers – exi st s at t h e li n e b et w een de s i gna t e d a nd l i m i t e d pub l i c f o r um s . O n o ne s i de , “ a de s i gna t e d p ubl i c f o r um 38 [ i s ] ope n f

o r i n d i s c r i m i n a t e p u b l i c u s e f o r c o m m u n i c a t i v e p u r p o s e s . ” On t he 39
o th e r s id e lie s th e lim ite d p u b lic fo r u m –w h e r e th e g o v e r n m e n t m a y “le g a lly Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Rosen berger , 5 1 5 U .S

. a t 8 2 9(cit ing Lamb’ s C hapel , 5 0 8U .S

. a t 3 9 0 ; C orn el ius v. 40 NAACP Legal Def. & Ed uc. Fu nd, In c. , 4 7 3U .S

. 7 8 8 , 8 0 6( 1 9 8 5 ); Perr y Educ . Assn
. , 46 0 U .S. a t 4 9). Ch iu , 2 6 0F .3 d a t 3 4 6(citati on s an d qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed).

41 Id

. at34 8. Fairchild insi sts that sch ool board meetin gs are alway s designat ed public 42 forums – citi ngfor support to Cit y of Ma d is onJ

oi n tSch oo l Dis t ri ctN u mb er 8 v . Wisconsi n Em ploymen t Relat ions Commissio n . 4 2 9U
. S

. 1 6 7( 1 9 7 6)

. Th a tc a s edi dn o ts oh o l d

. The Supre me C ourtconfront ed astat e l aw th at prohibite d n on-u nio n teachers from speakingat a public sch ool board mee ting , decl arin g that “whe n the board sit s inpublic mee tings t o condu ct public busi ness and hear the vi ews of citiz ens, it mayn ot b e re quired to di scrimin ate b etwe en sp eake rs on th e b a si s of th eir em pl oy me nt, o r th e co nte nt of th eir sp ee ch .” Id

. at 17 6. Context reve als that – withth e phrase “contentof their spee ch” – t he Co urt meant “vi ewpoint.” In deed, immediatelybefore theabove-qu oted sente nce, theCourtexplaine d th at “theparticip at io n in public discussio n of public b usin ess ca nno t b e co nfin ed toon e category of i nter ested indivi dual s. T o pe rmit one side of adeb atablepublic questi on to h av e amon opoly in expressin g its vi ews to the gove rnment is the antithe sis of constituti onal guar ant ees.” Id

. at 175 -76. Bec ause the state law discrimi nat ed b ased on vi ewpoint – u nlawful in anyforu m – for um a na ly s is d id not bear onth e o utco me. Not to me ntio n that th e ca se pre ceded by sev er al y ears th e C ourt ’smo de rnartic u lati ono f fo ru m an aly si s. See , e. g. , Rosen berger , 51 5 U.S. 8 19. Even read broa dly , the Court at most hel d th at the Madisonsch ool board mee ting was a designat ed public forum – n ott ha tall schoo l b oard meetin gs would be. Our casel aw co nfirm s this und erst a n di n g . Th e Su pr em e C ourth a s h el d “th e me etin gf a ciliti eso f a. . . public schoo l b oard meetin g . . . to be [a] fo rum[] fo r expressive activitie s byth e gene ral public or b y a c lass of speakers” (Est iverne v. La. State Bar Ass’ n , 863 F.2 d 37 1, 3 78 (5thC ir. 1 989) (c itin g Cit

y of Madiso n)) and t ha t“ s choo l b oard meetin gs canri se toth e l ev el of de sign ated 15 pr e s e r ve t he pr o pe r t y unde r i t s c o nt r o lf o r t he us e t o w hi c h i t i s de di c at e d. The
n ecess i t i es of confi n i n g a f orum t o t h e l i m i t ed an d l egi t i m ate purp oses f or w h i ch i t w as c r e at e d m ay j us t i f y t he St at e i n r e s e r vi ng i t f o r c e r t ai n g r o ups o r f o r t he di scussi on of

cer t ai n t opi cs. ” “ In d istin g u i shi n g betw een t h e t w o t yp es of 40 fo r u m s , o u r p r e c e d e n t d ir e c t s u s to fo c u s o n tw o fa c t o r s : (1 ) t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’s i n ten t w i th resp ect to t h e fo r u m , an d ( 2 ) th e n a tu re of the f oru m an d i ts
c o m p a tib ility w ith th e s p e e c h a t is s u e .” 41 The Boar d m e e t i ng he r e – and t he c o m m e nt s e s s i o n i n pa r t i c ul ar – i s a l i m i t ed publ i c f

or um “ f or t he l i m i t ed t i m e and t opi c of t he m ee t i ng. ” “ Pl ai nl y, 42 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

public forums” ( Ch iu , 260 F.3dat 348 (cit ing Cit y of Madiso n)). But Cit y of Madiso nal so sai d “[p]lainly , pub lic bodi es mayconfineth eir meetin gs to spe cifie d subje ct matter and mayh old nonpublic sessions to tran sact busi ness.” 42 9 U .S. at17 5 n .8.

Cit y of Madiso n , 42 9 U .S. at17 5 n .8. 43 Good News Club , 53 3 U .S. at10 6. 44 Cornelius , 4 7 3U .S

. a t 8 0 2 ( em ph a si s s u pp li ed). 45 Ch iu , 26 0 F .3d at 3 49 n.13
. 46 16 publ i c bo di es m a y c onf i ne t hei r m ee t i ngs t o s pec i f i ed s ubj ec t m at t erand m ay h old n on p u b l i c ses sion s to tran sa ct b u sine ss, ” an d the B oa rd m ee ti n g h ere f i ts 43 t h e horn book def

i n i t i on of

a l i m i t ed – n ot desi gn ate d – p u b li c f orum , i n w h i ch

“ t he St at e i s no t r e qui r e d t o and do e s no t al l o w pe r s o ns t o e nga ge i n e ve r y t yp e of speech. ” Th e B oard p ol i ci es excl u de f rom pu bl i c di scourse c ert ai n t opi cs of 44
s p e e c h –in c lu d in g in d iv id u a liz e d p e r s o n n e l m a tt e r s –w h ic h th e B o a r d ch a n n e ls i n t o m o r e e f

fe c t i ve di s put e r e s o l ut i o n a r e nas , b e f o r e i t he ar s t he m at t e r a nd resol ves i t
. S o li m i t ed, the B oard m eet i n g defi es categori zati on as a desi gn ated p u b l i c fo r u m , b e c a u s e “[t ]h e g o v e r n m e n t [c a n ]n o t c r e a te a [d e s ig n a te d ] p u b lic f orum by i n act i on or by perm i t t i ng l i m i t ed d i scourse . . . .” 45 C l ose ana l ysi s onl y confi rm s t h ese axi om ati c obser vati on s. T u rni n g f i rst t o t he D i s t r i c t ’ s i nt e nt i n c r e at i ng t he c o m m e nt s e s s i o n, w e pus h a s i de

“ se l f

- se r vi ng s t at em ent s r egar di ng t h e pur pos e o f t he m ee t i ng” f

orob j ec t i ve 46 evi den ce l eaven ed by com m on sense. Th e B oard op en s i t s m eet i n gs f or a short du rat i on t o h ear com m en t s rel evan t t o t h i s pa rt of i t s agen da

. B u t t h i s i t em of the a genda as des i gned and l i m i t ed i s not f ordi al ogue ordec i si on- m aki ng. R ather i t i s a l earn i n g an d routi n g m echa n i sm . B y i t s ru l es the B oard d oes not
e n g a g e th e p u b lic in d e b a te , b e c a u s e it m a y n o t d e lib e r a te o r ta k e a c tio n a t t h is Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

F airchil d’s ex amples of publically spoken “prai se” at B oard meeti ng s do not alte r th e 47 analy sis of the facial attack. I ndee d, the cited lau datory comment s – whichinclu ded th anki ng certain peopl e for painting a gy m (R. at 177 5) – did not dealwithper sonn el matters such as “appointment, employ ment, ev alu atio n, r eassignment, duties, discipline , or dismissal”– and so di d n ot f

all u nder a District policy. Theydo not cont emplat e furthe r actionbyth e B oard a n d h int of

n o fo cu se d di sp u tet o b e re so lved

. 17 j u n ct u re. I n st ead , t h e B oard – w h en prom pted – can reci t e on l y pol i cy an d l i st fac t s. At t he c om m ent s es si on, t he B oar d i s t o a l er t a s peakert o a n ad m i ni s t r at i ve pr o c e e di ng atw hi ch t h e s pe ak e r m ay b e he ar d a nd s e e k a
r em edy ort he B oar d m ay put t hat t opi c on f u tu re a ge n d a s. I t f ol l ow s t hat qua r r el s be t w e e n e m pl o ye e s a nd r e he ar s al s o f di s put e s m o vi ng t hr o ugh t he ad m i n i st rat i ve process h ave no pl ace i n t h e com m en t ses si on an d are n ot here ref l ect i ve of vi ew poi n t preference. T h e B oard h as l i m i t ed the com m en t ses si on t o f l aggi ng i ss ues f

orpot ent i ali n- dept h f ol l ow - up, di ver t i ng c ont r ove r si es t hat
sur fac e t o an al t er nat i ve hear i ng pat h t o be devel ope d bef or e bei ng r es ol ved by t he B oar d. The B oar d has a s t r ong and s pee c h- neut r ali nt er es t i n se t t i ng an agen da an d p aths t o B oard h eari n gs t o av o id i rrel evan t t opi cs or ext en ded contenti ou s debate. W h i l e th e B oa rd h a s h ere a li m i ted p u b l i c foru m , its poli ci es m u st be bo th
v iew p o in t- n eu t ralan d reason able i n l i gh t of t h e f orum ’ s pu rpose. Th ey are pl ai n l y both. T h ere i s n o evi den ce t h at t h e L i bert y school board d i scr i m i n ates based on the vi ew or i den t i t y of a gi ven speak e r. A sp eak er m ay d i scuss c o nc e r ns g e ne r al l y ( as Fai r c hi l d d i d) , b ut c anno t m o ve t o t he m e r i t s o f a n e xt ant di spu t e. To d o so coul d derai lthe agen da f or t h e m eet i n g an d ri sk u n n ecess ary di scl osure of

pri vate i n f

orm ati on abou t em pl oyees or st u den t s. 47 A n d the rul e i s r eason able. T h e B oard h as a l egi t i m ate i n t erest , i f not st ate- l aw du t y, to p rotectst u den t an d teacher pri vacy an d to avoid nam i n g or Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Wh it e v. N

or walk , 9 0 0F .2 d 1 4 2 1 , 1 4 2 5 ( 9 thC ir

. 1 9 9 0). 48 “Deci ding

w heth er aparticular regulationis cont ent-b ased or c onte nt-n eutr al is n ot 49 alway s a simple task. [Th e Supre me Court has] said that th e ‘ principal inquiryindete rmini ng co nte nt- n eutr ality
. . . is wh eth erth e govern me nt h a s adop te d ar egu lati ono f sp ee chb ec a u se 18 s h a m in g a s p o te n tia l fr u s tr a tio n o f its c o n d u c t of b u s in e s s . A s th e N in th C ir c u it h as explai n ed, “ t h e usu al [ F ] i rst[A ] m en dm en t a n t i pa t h y t o . . . con t rolof speech
c annot be i m por t ed i nt o [ gov er nm ent m ee t i ngs] i nt ac t
. . . . W hi l e a s peakerm ay no t b e s t o ppe d f

r o m s pe ak i ng be c aus e t he m o de rat or di s ag r e e s w i t h t he vi ew poi n t he i s expressi n g, i t cer t ai n l y m ay stop hi m i f hi s sp e e ch becom es ir r e le v a n t o r re p e tit iou s. ” W h er e th e B o a r d ca n n o t t a k e im m e d ia te re s p o n s ib le 48
ac t i on, i t nee d not s uf ferone si de o f

a di sput e a w ai t i ng r es ol ut i on by al t er nat i ve ch a n n els. In sh ort, the B oa rd did n ot op en the com m en t ses sion of i ts ag en d a to
c r eat e a di sput e r es ol ut i on f or um , ant i c i pat i ng t hat i ss ues that do ar i se can be
c h a n n e le d in to a n d h e a r d a t on e o f th e B o a r d ’ s ro b u s t g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s e s . T h is l e a v e s t h e p u b l i c a mp l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d –j u s t n o t h e r e a n d n o w. S o un derst ood, t h e seem i n g vi ew poi n t i n dex of n ot al l ow i n g att acks u pon an i n di vi du al i n i t s l i m i t ed p u bl i c f orum di sapp ears. Th e D i st ri ct excl u des
r e s o l u t i o n o f

t h e me r i t s o f

d i s p u t e d i n d i v i d u a lp e r f o r ma n c e i n i t s l i mi t e d f o r u m, and t o a l l o w t he c ha r g e s o f o ne s i d e wou l d f o r c e a l l o wan c e o f a r es ponse – a fr u s t r a t io n o f

t h i s s t u d ie d e ffo r t to m a n a g e it s a g e n d a . I n s h o r t , t h e B o a r d ’s agen da does not al l ow at t h i s t i m e an d p l ace c h a rg es agai n st i t s t each ers. R a th er, i t rerou tes th em f or fu rth er trea tm en t. A l t h ou gh f

orum an al ysi s l i gh t s t h e path to t h e cor rect resul t , i t bears
em ph asi s t h at t h e B oard’ s r u l es ul t i m atel y do n ot con strai n by the content of protec t ed speech bu t rat h er do no m ore than li m i t the t i m e, pl ace, an d m an n er fo r it s e xp ress i on . A b sen t t h e a ff ord ed altern a ti ve pa th s f or ex p ress i n g th is 49 Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

of [a gre ementor] disagreement withth e messa geitconve ys.’” Turn er Bro ad. Sys. v. FCC, 51 2 U. S. 622 , 6 4 2 ( 1 994) (cit ing Ward v. Ro ck AgainstRac ism , 49 1 U .S. 78 1, 7 91 (198 9)). Th e District does not take sides and ju stifies its gen erally -applicab le rul es with out refere nce to the cont ent of

th e re gu late d sp ee ch

. See Ren to n v. Playt ime Th eat res , 4 7 5 U
. S

. 4 1 , 4 8( 1 9 8 6 ); Horto n v. Cit

y of Houston , 17 9 F .3d 1 88, 193(5th Cir. 1 999) (“[T]his court h as n oted that gove rnment re gulati ons that applyevenh ande dlyto allspeakers weigh i n f avor o f fin ding cont ent- neut rali ty. ” (c itin g In t’ l Soc’y for Krish na Consciousnessof New Orleans, In c. v. Baton Rouge , 8 7 6 F.2d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 1989)) ). The Di st ric t’s pred om inate– indeedonly – conc erns are with frustration of the Board’s agendaan d divulgenceof priv ate info rmatio n, not with the cont ent of a nyparticular dispute

.

See Metrom edi a, Inc. v. City of San Diego , 4 5 3U .S

. 4 9 0( 1 9 8 1 ); id. at52 8 (Brenn an, 50 J., co ncurrin g) (“Th e c ityh as faile d to provide adequat e j ustificati on for its sub stanti al res tri cti on on pro tec tedactivit y.” (cit ing Sch ad v . Mo u n tE

ph ra im , 4 5 2 U .S

. 6 1 , 7 2 ( 1 9 8 1 )) ). Ren to n , 47 5 U .S. at50
. 51 19 cat egory of

prot ect ed speech w e w ou ld b e fa ced w i t h a qu i t e di f ferent c ase. W h ere boun da ry li n e s o f f o ru m u se cr o ss to c o n te n t a n d v iew p o in t d iscri m i n ati on c a n b e e lu s iv e , a n d w e d o n o t s u g g e s t th a t in a p p lic a tio n a co n te n t-n e u tr a l ru le
can n ot of

fen d . A s w e ha ve j u st observed, t h e absen ce of al t erna t i ve pa t h s f

or expr es si on her e w oul d be di f f i c ul t t o def

end and a c ont ent
- neut r alr ul e m ay be cal cul ated t o st ep u pon sp eech – h ere, f or exam pl e, pu bl i c c ri t i ci sm of t each ers. Th i s r ec or d s upport s nei t her of t hes e po ss i bl e Fi r stA m endm ent fai l i ngs of an ot he rw i se per m i ss i bl e c ont ent
- neut r alr ul e. Fi nal l y, i t m ay be s ugges t ed t hat th e fi t betw ee n th e D i stri ct’ s en d s a n d i ts m ea n s a re i n su ff i ci en tl y exa ct. W e 50
ar e unp e r s uad e d. Thes e rul e s w e r e des i gne d t o se r ve a s ubs t ant i alg o ve r nm e nt i nt e r e s t a nd a l l o w f

o r r e as o nab l e a l t e r nat i ve c o m m uni c at i o n. 51 U n der t h e l i m i t i n g constr u ct i on of B E D ( L ocal ) , t h e pol i cy does not i nf r i nge a “ s ubs t ant i al” a m o unt o f pr o t e c t e d s pe e c h. “Appl i c ati on o f t he overbread t h doct ri n e . . . is , m an i fest l y, str on g m edi ci n e. I t ha s been em pl oyed Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

Bro adrick , 41 3 U .S. at61 3. 52 Our rej ectio n of the BED (Local) ove rbre adthclaim leaves the door open to a s-appli ed 53 ch all en g es–

th e me ritso f whicharel es s th a na pp a re nt b u t n otb ef or e u s. Hill v. C

olorado , 530 U. S. 703, 732 (20 0 0 ) (c i ting Ch icagov. Mo rales , 52 7 U .S. 41 , 54 5 6 -5 7( 1 9 9 9))

. We h av e si milarlyn ot edth a t “[o] bj ec ti on s to v a gu en es s u n de r th e Du e P ro ce ss Cl ause r es to n t he lack of n oticean d h encemaybeovercomeinany specific ca se whe re reaso nab le person s would know that their co ndu ct i s at risk. On th e o therh and, an ordin anc e is vague . . . whereitsubje cts th e e xe rcise of [a] ri ght . . . t o a n una scertainablestan dard, or if, in othe r words, men of common inte lli ge nce must nece ssarily gu ess at its meaning .” Unit ed States v. Clark , 582 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 2009) (c itin g Maynard v. C art wright , 486 U.S. 3 56, 3 6 1 ( 1 9 8 8); Coatesv. City of Cinci nnati , 40 2 U .S. 61 1, 6 14 (197 1); a nd Con nally v. G en. Const r. Co. , 2 6 9U .S

. 3 8 5 , 3 9 1 ( 1 9 2 6)) (inte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed). 20 b y th e C ou rt spa ri n gly a n d o n l y a s a last reso rt. ” W e h a ve n o rea son tod a y to 52
w r i t e t hatpr e s c r i pt i o n. 53

b

. F a i rch i l d w i sely d oe s n ot p u sh the va gu en ess p ron g, a s i t l a ck s m erit. “A statu te c a n b e i m p erm i ssibly v a gu e for e i th er of tw o ind ep en d en t reas on s. F i rst, i f i t fa i l s to pr ov i d e p eo p l e of ord i n a ry i n tel l i ge n ce a rea son a b l e op p ortu n i ty to
u n derst an d w h at c on du ct i t prohibi t s. Secon d, i f it a u t h ori zes oreven e n c o u r a g e s a r b itr a r y a n d d is c r im in a to r y e n fo r c e m e n t.” 54 F ai rchi l d of

fers n o evi den ce t h at t h e B oard has ever gagg ed a spea ker, or t h at t h e pol i ce hav e rem oved a speak er f rom a B oard m eet i n g. R egard l ess, f or t h e governm en t t o prosecute a person f or c au si n g a dis t u rban ce at a B oard
m e e t i ng, t he s pe ak e r –a f t e r w ar ni ng – m us t per s i s t i n t he di s t ur ba nc e . N o t hi ng
u n a scer tain a b l e h ere to pe op l e of com m on i n tel l i ge n ce. In d ee d , the pr ed i ca te
w a r n in g –lik e a s c ie n te r re q u ir e m e n t – c le a n s e s th is la w o f a n y d iffic u lty in Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

SeeHi ll , 530 U.S. at 732 (explai nin g that a “knowin g” scienter made the statut e i n 55 th a t ca sen otv a gu e)

. Wen ote that F airchil d’s a nal ogies to licen sing sch emes miss the mark. The recor d 56 does not r ev ealth e B oard to h av e “u nfette red discreti on” to silence spe akers dur ing the comment session, and presenting doe s no t re quire alicense .

21 u n d e rs ta n di n g. I f t h e m oderator asks you t o cease, st op d oi n g i t
. For 55
e s s e nt i al l y t he s am e r e as o ns , no t hi ng i n BE D ( Loc al) fai l s a de qua t e l y t o g ui de l aw e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c i a l s . T h e p o l i c e c a n o n l y r e m o v e a s p e a k e r a f t e r t he spe aker r ec ei ves w ar ni ng t o s t op di sr upt i ng t he m ee t i ng. 56

B
. Fai r c hi l d want e d t he Boa r d t o ho l d he rpo st
- t erm i n ati on gri evan ce hear i ng i n pu bl i c, bu t – becau se s h e sough t al so t o a sk the B oard to f i re B arri er La n i er

–t h e Bo a r d c l o s e d F a i r c h i l d ’ s hea r i ng pu r s u a n t t o DGBA ( Lo c a l ) a n d BEC ( Legal )

. U nl i ke w i t h t he c om m ent s es si on pol i c y – w h ere s he br ought onl y a fac i alc hal l e nge – Fai r c hi l d o f fe r s bo t h an as - ap pl i e d and fac i al c hal l e nge t o t he post- t erm i n ati on g ri evan ce pol i ci es. W e app l y t h e sam e an al yti cal f ram ew ork
as w e di d t o Fai r c hi l d’ s c l ai m a ga i ns t BE D (Local) , a nd –b e c aus e o f t he sim i l a ri ty b etw ee n th e p oli ci es
–w e, n ot su rp ri sing l y, com e to th e sa m e res u l t. F a i r c h i l d ’ s p o s t
- t e r mi n a t i o n h e a r i n g r e p r e s e n t e d a l i mi t e d p u b l i c f o r u m. T h e B oar d by def

i ni t i on i nt ended t hat Fai r c hi l d use t hi s hear i ng m er el y t o a p p e a l h e r te r m in a tio n . A t t h e s e h e a r in g s , o n ly th e e m p lo y e e , co u n s e l,
w i t ne s s e s , a nd D i s t r i c t c an s pe ak

. The Boar d m ayo nl y c o ns i de r t he i s s ue s a nd d ocu m en ts pre sen ted at L ev els I & II. A soa p b ox th e g ri ev a n ce h ea ri n g is no t. A n d a Level I I I t er m i nat i on appeal r es t r i c t i ng anci l l ar y t opi c s i s nec es sa r y t o i m pl e m e nt i ng t he Boa r d’ s na r r o w pur po s e o f r e s o l vi ng t he a ppe ala t ha nd. Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 21 Date Filed: 02/22/2010N o. 08- 40833

22 Th e Boar d’ s r es t r i c t i ons i n t hi s l i m i t ed f or um ar e b ot h vi ew poi nt
- neut r al
an d reason able. Th e B oard by defau lt c los e s di scussi on of personn elm att ers. The s ubj e c t m at t e r o f t he cl osed he ar i ngs i nc l ude s b o t h “ ap po i nt m e nt ” a nd “d is m is s a l ” – o p p o s ite s id e s o f th e s a m e co in

. A d d itio n a lly , th e D is tr ic t’s ru le di rect l y serves sub sta n t i al st ate i n t erest s i n em pl oyee pri vacy an d d i sci pl i n ed
a g e n d a wh i l e e n s u r i n g t h e a c c u r a c y o f i n f o r ma t i o n d i s c l o s e d a t t h e h e a r i n g . O n t he i r fac e , t h e po l i c i e s do no t i nf r i nge a “ s ubs t ant i al” a m o unt o f pr o t e c t e d s pe e c h. T u rni n g speci f

i cal l y t o F ai rch il d’ s t erm i n ati on app eal , t h e B oard
m ech a n i ca l l y a p p l i ed i ts oth erw i se va l i d p oli ci es. F a i rch i l d ask ed the B oa rd to ho l d he r he ar i ng i n pu bl i c , w hi c h i t w o ul d ha ve do ne . Fa i r c hi l d, t ho ugh , s o ugh t i n th e h ea ri n g to c om p l a i n a b ou t a D i stri ct e m p l oy ee –B a rrier L a n i er
–an d to ask tha t t h e B oard f i re her. Th i s t ri ggere d B E C ( L egal) , a reasonab l e, vi ew poi n t
- n eu t ralrul e of gen eral ap p li ca b il i t y: t h e B oard w i l lhea r i n cl osed
s e s s i o n m at t e r s r e l at i ng t o “ t he a ppo i nt m e nt , e m pl o ym e nt , e va l uat i o n, reassi gn m en t , du t i es, di sci pl i n e, or di sm i ssalof a pu bl i c . . . em pl oyee” – u n l ess th e s u b je c t o f th a t p e r s o n n e l m a t te r re q u e s ts o th e r w is e . A lth o u g h F a ir c h ild
w an t ed h er ow n i ssues ai red t o t h e pu bl i c, she al so w an t ed to seek dis m i ssalof Bar r i e r Lani e r , a di f fe r e nt e m pl o ye e w ho di d no t
. W e a r e pe r s uad e d t hatt he B oard’ s Lev elI II t erm i n ati on app eal pol i cies di d n ot vi ol ate Fa i rchi l d’ s Fir st A m en dm en t ri gh t s. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-40833 Document: 00511032827 Page: 22 Date Filed: 02/22/2010