A federal court case alleging free speech violations against School District 49 will go to trial after a motion for summary judgment was denied.

The motion involving the 2023 lawsuit, filed by current D-49 board member Deb Schmidt and Ohio resident Kelly Kohls, requested that Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell reach a verdict without going to trial. Dominguez Braswell denied the motion on March 12 because certain parameters to limit speech and expression during a board of education meeting are allowed.

District 49 faces lawsuit over alleged free speech violations

During a board meeting Feb. 22, 2023, Schmidt and Kohls each held up signs calling for board members Rick Van Wieren, Lori Thompson and John Graham to resign. Both were told by Graham that they violated decorum and would be asked to leave if they didn’t put down their signs.

When they refused to do so after multiple requests, the meeting was halted. Security escorted them out of the building.

Schmidt would later that year get elected to D-49’s board of education.

The Gazette previously reported that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after suffering “injury and damages in having their core political speech stifled and censored” and being deprived of their constitutional rights protected by the First and 14th amendments.

Dominguez Braswell concluded that board of education meetings qualify as “limited public forums” and, despite being open to the public, they are created for specific groups with an intended purpose and that restrictions can be applied to conduct beyond this purpose.

“Unlike a public library, the purpose of District 49’s meetings is to discuss and conduct the specific business of District 49,” she wrote in the court order. “Attendees are not allowed to engage with the meetings in any matter and on any topic they see fit. Instead, they must limit their comment time and adhere to relevant topics.”

One distinction for these types of forums is that the body of government can put “reasonable limits on content” if they are reasonable and neutral in their viewpoint.

The neutral viewpoint was another point of contention by the plaintiffs, who argued that they were singled out because of the personal stances they took with their signs’ messaging. Schmidt and Kohls contended the board enforced its “no sign” policy against them solely because of their political viewpoint, and that others who previously held signs with a different viewpoint did not have to put down their signs.

D-49 Superintendent Peter Hilts disagreed in his deposition, saying that they had similarly enforced the policy at a previous meeting when community members held their own signs calling for the resignation of board member Ivy Liu. A recording of a November 2022 board meeting showed Graham asking members of the public to put down their “distracting” signs.

“[I]t was our practice that written signs were disallowed and every time, which is only two instances, every time that a written sign was put up, the board president consistently said put that down,” Hilts said. “The difference is in these two cases in November, they immediately put them down, and in February they denied, or declined, to put them down.”

Given the dispute over the plaintiffs’ claims, Judge Dominguez Braswell determined that it precluded the motion for summary judgment. Trial and pretrial hearing dates will be scheduled at a later date.

In an email to The Gazette, Schmidt stood by the motion and their First Amendment rights were violated .

“Nonetheless, as the judge ruled there are factual issues for which trial is necessary, we look forward to presenting this case to a jury,” she said.