A federal judge in California on Friday declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by US Representatives Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor-Greene against California cities Anaheim and Riverside. Gaetz and Greene, who are members of the Republican Party, claim that the cities violated their free-speech rights by cancelling their planned political rally because of their viewpoints.
Gaetz and Greene were planning to hold a political rally in California in July 2021. Their organization made arrangements in Laguna Hills, Riverside and then Anaheim, but in each city, the hosting location cancelled after public outrage about the event. Gaetz and Greene ultimately “held a protest outside Riverside City Hall.”
Last July, they sued Riverside, Anaheim and several advocacy groups that had campaigned against the event, such as the NAACP. They claimed that the cities had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue state and local governments for civil-rights violations. The claim against the advocacy groups relied on 42 U.S.C. § 1985, known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which prohibits conspiracies that interfere with civil rights.
Judge Hernán D. Vera let the claims against the cities go forward, but dismissed the claims against the advocacy groups.
Vera decided that Gaetz and Greene had “adequately allege[d]” that “the event cancellations were expressly predicated on viewpoint discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Riverside owned the convention center at issue, and its mayor “had been ‘pushing’ to get the event cancelled,” according to the judge. Anaheim did not own the theater at issue there, but one of its officials threatened to put the theater’s permit “‘in jeopardy’ if the event went through.”
Yet Vera sharply rebuked Gaetz and Greene for “haling nine civil rights groups into federal court for speaking out against an event.” He decided that their claim suffered from “fatal deficiencies” because it failed to point to any coordination among the groups and to intimidation of supporters of Gaetz and Greene. He also described the claim as “a conspiracy theory that relies purely on conjecture” and a “misguided effort to settle political scores against these civic organizations.”
The claim against the cities can now proceed to the discovery phase and ultimately to trial, unless the parties settle their dispute or either side wins on a motion for summary judgment.
Free speech rights under the First Amendment are a frequent source of public debate and litigation in the US. The US Supreme Court is currently deciding several cases that involve free speech, such as NRA v. Vullo and Netchoice.
