Thomas M. Durkin
A federal judge temporarily barred a southeast suburban Cook County school board from forbidding speakers to criticize officials by name at board meetings.
In a written opinion Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted Komaa Mnyofu’s motion for a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of a purported policy banning criticism — but not praise — of school officials at meetings of the board of education of Rich Township High School District 227.
Durkin held Mnyofu is reasonably likely to prevail on his contention that the alleged policy imposes a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Losing the right to free speech “for even minimal periods of time,” Durkin wrote, quoting Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, 378 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2004), “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
On the other hand, the school board is not at risk of suffering such an injury if a preliminary injunction is imposed, Durkin wrote.
There is no irreparable harm to a governmental entity “when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” he wrote, quoting Joelner, “because it is always in the public interest to protect First Amendment liberties.”
Durkin issued his opinion in a lawsuit Mnyofu filed last year against the school board and its president, Antoine Bass.
A trial date has not been set.
Mnyofu is represented by Jon Loevy and Matthew V. Topic, both of Loevy & Loevy.
“Obviously, we’re very happy with the court’s decision,” Topic said. “It vindicates the right of the public to speak freely at meetings like this and make critical comments about public officials.”
The lead attorney for the board and Bass is John A. Relias of Franczek, Radelet P.C.
Relias declined to comment on Durkin’s opinion because the case is pending.
But he said he and his co-counsel will continue to defend the board’s position, “which we think is meritorious.”
The board concedes it previously barred criticism of school employees by name at its meetings.
However, the board denies it ever barred criticism of school officials or public officials.
Mnyofu is a Matteson resident who has one child enrolled in Rich Central High School.
Mnyofu alleges he was forcibly removed from a school board meeting last May after he refused to comply with Bass’ order not to chastise anyone by name.
Bass gave that order, Mnyofu contends, when he accused the board of shielding certain school officials who were doing a bad job.
The school board later filed a suit in Cook County Circuit Court seeking an injunction against Mnyofu.
The board’s suit conceded Bass at the May meeting directed Mnyofu not to mention specific staff members by name “in a disparaging manner.”
The suit also conceded Bass asked a school district security officer to escort Mnyofu out of the room.
However, the suit maintained, Mnyofu shouted at the security officer and an audience member and refused to comply with instructions to leave the room.
Mnyofu again was disruptive at a July meeting, making false accusations against board members and yelling when other people tried to speak, the board’s suit contended.
Mnyofu engaged in such “extreme behavior,” it contended, that he was arrested by Matteson police for criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and assault.
The charges were later dismissed.
The board’s suit asked for an injunction banning Mnyofu from disrupting board meetings or disparaging staff members by name during the meetings.
In the alternative, the suit asked that Mnyofu be barred from attending board meetings during the 2015-16 school year and that he be allowed to communicate with the board only in writing.
Cook County Circuit Judge Kathleen M. Pantle denied the school board’s request for an injunction and dismissed the suit.
The case was Board of Education of Rich Township High School District 227 v. Komaa Mnyofu, No. 2015 CH 12859.
Mnyofu filed his own action in federal court seeking damages for the alleged violation of his First Amendment rights.
In his opinion, Durkin rejected the argument that Mnyofu’s motion for an injunction — preliminary or permanent — was moot.
Durkin conceded the board says it has stopped enforcing its ban on criticizing school employees.
But the board and Bass deny that enforcing the ban was an attempt to violate Mnyofu’s right to free speech, Durkin wrote.
He wrote the arguments raised by the board and Bass show “they still believe that the First Amendment permits them to reinstate the policy in the future.”
The case is Komaa Mnyofu v. Board of Education of Rich Township High School District 227, et al., No. 15 C 8884.