Judge Brandon Long, nominated by President Biden to the federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, rejected a motion to dismiss and allowed three former library board members to proceed with a lawsuit contending that they were improperly ousted in violation of the First Amendment for speaking in favor of minors’ access to pro-LGBTQ+ materials. The July 2024 decision was in McHugh v St. Tammany Parish..
What is the background of this case?
The St. Tammany Parish Council, located in southeastern Louisiana, had appointed William McHugh, Anthony Parr, and Rebecca Taylor as members of the public library board for five-year terms. Beginning in 2022, a “firestorm of controversy” arose about inclusion of pro-LGBTQ+ literature in parish libraries and minors’ access to those materials. McHugh, Parr, and Taylor spoke in favor of such inclusion and access at library board meetings and voted against efforts to remove such materials from library shelves.
After the election of new Council members in late 2023, the Council voted to declare a number of seats on the library board, including those held by McHugh and his two colleagues, as “vacant” because they allegedly did not comply with state law requiring staggered terms. Although an initial proposed resolution called for the reappointment of all board members, the Council then passed a resolution that did not reappoint McHugh and his two colleagues, replacing them with people described as “approved conservative candidates” who would “protect our children.” In essence, the Council fired McHugh, Parr, and Taylor.
The three terminated library board members filed a federal lawsuit against the parish, contending that its actions against them were in retaliation for their expressed views in favor of pro-LGBTQ+ literature and thus violated the First Amendment. The parish moved to dismiss the case as a matter of law, claiming that the complaint did not state a proper cause of action.
How did Judge Long Rule and Why is it Important?
After carefully reviewing the complaint and the relevant case law, Judge Long denied the motion to dismiss so that the case could go forward. At this stage of the litigation, Judge Long explained, there is a “plausible inference” that the Council’s actions effectively singled out the three board members “for disfavored treatment.” It was also clear, he went on, that there were “factual disputes” between the parties that could not be resolved at this stage. The basic “principle,” Long wrote, is that “[g]overnment may not ‘punish protected speech,’” as the three board members contend happened here. The three terminated board members can now go forward and try to prove their claims; the judge has stated that he plans to hold a consolidated hearing that will resolve both a motion for a preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs and the merits of the case..
Judge Long’s decision is obviously important to terminated library board members William McHugh, Anthony Parr, and Rebecca Taylor, who will now have the opportunity to get justice for the constitutional violations they contend were committed against them. The ruling is also significant to others in the community and elsewhere around the country concerned about efforts to exclude pro- LGBTQ+ literature and other materials from libraries, The decision also provides an important example of the significance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts.