Cajune v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 194

688 F.Supp.3d 848

Bob CAJUNE, Cynthia Cajune, Kalynn Kay Aaker, LION 194, John Doe #1, Mary Roe #1-7,and S.W., C.W., O.W., and H.W., minors, by Kalynn Kay Aaker, Plaintiffs, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 194,and Doug Van Zyl, or any successor, in his official capacity asSuperintendent of Independent School District 194, Defendants.

Civ. No. 22-2135 (JWB/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Signed August 21, 2023

James V.F. Dickey, Esq., and Douglas P. Seaton, Esq., Upper Midwest Law Center, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Trevor S. Helmers, Esq., and Zachary J. Cronen, Esq., Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, counsel for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED PSUEDONYMOUSLY AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

JERRY W. BLACKWELL, United States District Judge

Since the summer following Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), public schools have played a central role in preparing our children to live harmoniously in an increasingly multicultural and diverse country through an integrated educational environment. The Supreme Court has "also acknowledged that public schools are vitally important in the preparation of individuals for participation as citizens, and as vehicles for inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 864, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) (quotation omitted).

Following George Floyd's murder in May 2020, school administrators, staff, and teachers joined much of the country in finding ways to support their students, including Black students. For its part in those efforts, in April 2021, the school board for the Lakeville, Minnesota public school district vetted and authorized a multicultural poster series that included two posters with the phrase "Black Lives Matter."

Not everyone supported the decision. Believing the posters carried political messages, some parents and students objected to hanging "Black Lives Matter" posters without also displaying posters offering various other viewpoints. After the school board denied those requests, the objectors challenged the school board's action by filing this lawsuit, claiming First Amendment violations. (See Doc. No. 17 ("Am. Compl.").)

The school board now seeks to dismiss the case. (Doc. No. 23.) The central issue is whether displaying the "Black Lives Matter" posters violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by endorsing what they contend is a hostile political ideology.

Because display of the posters constitutes government speech not subject to First Amendment challenge, the school board's motion is granted, and Plaintiffs' lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

I. The Parties

Defendants are the Independent School District 194 in Lakeville, Minnesota ("ISD 194" or "the District") and its superintendent, Doug Van Zyl. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23.)

Named Plaintiffs include Bob and Cynthia Cajune, "who at all relevant times are residents within ISD 194, own property within ISD 194, and pay taxes, including property taxes, to Defendant ISD 194." (Id. ¶ 18.) Another is Kalynn Kay Aaker, who pays taxes to the District and sues as the parent and guardian of minor-plaintiffs S.W., O.W., C.W., and H.W., school children from the District alleged in the Complaint to "have 'White' skin." (Id. ¶ 20.) Finally, Plaintiff LION 194 is an unincorporated "faith-based, grassroots" association of District residents and taxpayers. (Id. ¶ 19.)

The remaining Plaintiffs are John Doe #1 and Mary Roe #1-7 ("the Unnamed Plaintiffs"), who allege that they pay taxes to the District and "seek to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal from political activists in the southern suburban Minneapolis metropolitan community." (Id. ¶ 21.)

II. The Inclusive Poster Series

Following George Floyd's murder in 2020, "teachers, staff, and activists" in the District requested permission to display "Black Lives Matter" posters in hallways and classrooms. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 29.) On September 22, 2020, the District's superintendent at the time emailed parents to explain that teachers would not be allowed to display "Black Lives Matter" posters in school because doing so would violate the District's policy against "conduct that is intended to be or reasonably could be perceived as endorsing or opposing specific political issues or political candidates." (Id. ¶¶ 2, 28-29.) At a school board meeting on the same day, "a vocal group of people . . . expressed their disdain for the email and stressed their desires" to display the posters. (Id. ¶ 30.)

By December 2020, four school board meetings and "work sessions" had been substantially devoted to discussions of race, including a "policy review" over posting "Black Lives Matter" in the District's schools. (Id. ¶ 33.) In April 2021, the District "authorized," "paid for," and "allowed to be posted" the "Inclusive Poster Series" (shown below) "to support staff in creating school communities where students are respected, valued[,] and welcome." (Id. ¶¶ 4, 9, 34, 36.)

Two of the eight posters include the phrase "Black Lives Matter" and the following statement: "At Lakeville Area Schools we believe Black Lives Matter and stand with the social justice movement the statement represents. This poster is aligned to School Board policy and an unwavering commitment to our Black students, staff[,] and community members." (Id. ¶¶ 4, 34.)

Image materials not available for display.

(Doc. No. 26-1 at 1-5.)

The Inclusive Poster Series "went through a review process with focus groups that included students, school staff, school building leaders, the School Board, community advisory groups[,] and others." (Am. Compl. ¶ 38.) The District considered stakeholder feedback to further diversify the poster series. For example, they "didn't see an Asian person" in the posters, and the Native American Liaison "wanted to see . . . Native American students represented." (Id. ¶ 39(g).) The District also discussed replacing the blonde girl with a blonde boy in the poster with children holding signs. (Id. ¶ 67.) To finalize the posters, the District stated that it would "be meeting with a couple more internal district leadership committees to gain some final input, and then from there [to] just work with a printer." (Id. ¶ 39(h).) Then, District schools "could pick and choose" which posters they wanted. (Id. ¶ 39(f).)

Plaintiff Bob Cajune, a District taxpayer, asked the District to allow "rival viewpoints" such as "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" to be presented alongside the "Black Lives Matter" posters. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 49.) The District declined, stating that those "mottos were created specifically in opposition to Black Lives Matter" and "discount the struggle the Black students have faced in our school buildings and that Black individuals face in our society as a whole." (Id. ¶¶ 7, 50.)

III. The Meaning of "Black Lives Matter" According to Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs allege that "Black Lives Matter" "is well-known to be a neo-Marxist separatist slogan that identifies Black Americans as 'part of the global Black family' and seeks to 'disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,' " which "is hostile to White people as well as demeaning to Black people." (Id. ¶¶ 41, 52.) Plaintiffs further allege that the group "Black Lives Matter at School . . . encourages the emphasis of 'Black Villages,' " which means "the disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics." (Id. ¶ 41.) To Plaintiffs, the link between the phrase "Black Lives Matter" and the political movement are "inextricably intertwined in the minds of the public." (Id. ¶ 10.) "Small children understand this," according to Plaintiffs.¹ (Id.)

IV. The Lawsuit and Present Motions

Plaintiffs sued Defendants under the First Amendment for "exclud[ing], and thereby discriminat[ing] against Plaintiffs' viewpoint that Plaintiffs wanted displayed alongside the 'Black Lives Matter' posters" and for compelling them to "subsidize unwanted political advocacy by private parties." (See id. ¶¶ 85, 88.) They challenge only the two posters in the Inclusive Poster Series that bear the phrase "Black Lives Matter."

Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint.² (Doc. No. 23.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs lack standing, and that the government speech doctrine precludes their First Amendment claims. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal and seek leave for the Unnamed Plaintiffs to proceed using pseudonyms. (Doc. Nos. 33, 35.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Unnamed Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously³

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that the complaint "must name all the parties." It is fundamental that "the public has a right to know who is using [its] courts." Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation omitted); see also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546 (1947) ("A trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room [sic] is public property."). Accordingly, "[t]here is a strong presumption against allowing parties to use a pseudonym." Luckett v. Beaudet, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1029 (D. Minn. 1998) (citations omitted).

On a motion to proceed pseudonymously, courts consider three non-exhaustive factors "which, if present, might support anonymity": (1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are "suing to challenge governmental activity"; (2) whether prosecuting the suit compels plaintiffs to disclose "information of the utmost intimacy"; and (3) whether plaintiffs are "compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution." See id. (internal quotations omitted).

Only the first factor is arguably present here.⁴ "[I]n only a very few cases challenging governmental activity can anonymity be justified." Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981). "The threat of hostile public reaction to a lawsuit, standing alone, will only with great rarity warrant public...