Pennsbury In Federal Court Over Enforcement Of School Board Policies

A federal judge in Philadelphia is deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the Pennsbury School Board from enforcing Policy 903 and Policy 922, which the plaintiffs claim infringes on their First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2004, heard testimony and arguments last week in the Philadelphia courtroom.

The request for an injunction, a legal remedy that requires a defendant to carry out or restrain from certain actions, came from Tim Daly, Simon Campbell, Doug Marshall, and Robert Abrams, a group of Lower Makefield Township residents who have filed a federal lawsuit alleging the local government violated their First Amendment rights against the district, school board, its attorneys, and staff.

The injunction requests the school board and its representatives are barred from enforcing the two politics – 903 and 922.

Policy 903 allows the board and solicitor to “interrupt or terminate a participant’s statement when the statement is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant.”

Policy 922, which was introduced earlier this year, blocks “offensive, inappropriate, intolerant, and/or threatening speech or behavior erodes the civil, orderly, and respectful environment that the Board seeks to promote in district schools, on district property, and at district-sponsored events and activities.”

Attorney Del Kolde, who represented the plaintiffs through the Institute for Free Speech, argued the board has no problem allowing “personally directed” comments when they are positive, but the board blocks that speech using Policy 903 when it criticizes the district or board.

Kolde displayed a video compilation for the judge of the speakers making comments the school board did not like and shutting them down, including the clip of solicitor Peter Amuso, of law firm Rudolph Clarke, losing his cool at speakers and telling them to stop.

Gary Dadamo, who was representing the district and school board, told the judge the school board meeting was a limited public forum and the school board and its representatives could stop public comment if they were discussing off-topic subjects. He said issuing the injunction would open the meetings up to all types of public comment that were unrelated to the school board’s duties.

The attorney representing the board and district said the injunction could lead to “disorderly conduct” and “violence.” He seemed flustered at times when trying to explain those comments after the judge pressed him on them.

Dadamo said one of the speakers violated Policy 903 in December 2020, but he was allowed to continue speaking. He also pointed to Marshall’s controversial comments in spring that were allowed at the meeting but later edited out of the video recording.

The judge pressed Dadamo on hypotheticals on the district’s policies and how they could be implemented.

“How can you justify a policy that says you’re out of here because you called someone incompetent?” she asked the attorney.

She stated blocking some people from directing a comment that someone is “incompetent” at a specific board member or district staff member seems like a “pretty long reach.”

The issue of the board’s uneven handling of written comments during virtual-only meetings during the pandemic was brought up.

Dadamo admitted the way to handle written comments were a “challenge” for the board.

Kolde told the judge the board’s actions have stifled residents from expressing their opinions.

Campbell, an outspoken former board member, testified the district’s actions at meetings, including having an increased police presence, have made him avoid speaking recently at meetings.

Marshall testified he “toned down” his comments at meetings after the board and district edited his comments out of videos.

“Viewpoint discrimination is always illegal,” Kolde said.

The attorney pointed out to the judge that this did not apply to his clients, but even racist comments are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Kolde told the judge internal district communications and comments about stopping some public comment showed the local government “celebrated” stifling residents’ comments.

The judge did not state when she would issue her decision, but she acknowledged there are board meetings upcoming.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the district is just beginning to make its way through the federal court system.

Report a correction via email | Editorial standards and policies

---

---