Appeals court rebukes Democrat-turned-judge for fining educators $313K for challenging woke training

Cross-ideological activists who sue the government for violating civil rights breathed a sigh of relief Friday when a federal appeals court struck down a $313,000 penalty on two Missouri educators who sued Springfield Public Schools for mandatory antiracism training.

It was a qualified victory for Brooke Henderson and Jennifer Lumley, with the Des Moines, Iowa-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing with an elected Democrat-turned-trial judge that they didn't have legal standing to sue the district for violating their First Amendment rights.

Forcing the duo to pay the district's legal fees prompted concerns from conservatives, libertarians and the ACLU, who together argued the precedent would not only harm students and parents who are often unconstitutionally targeted but also make it harder for courts to recruit attorneys to represent prisoners challenging their treatment.

Oral argument in February predicted the split ruling, upholding the mandatory training while vacating attorney's fees. President George W. Bush nominee Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote the opinion, joined by President George H.W. Bush nominee James Loken and President Obama nominee Jane Louise Kelly.

The district "did not assign an epithet" to the educators when they pushed back on its racial essentialism and stated explicitly it was not calling each of them "as an individual a white supremacist" for objecting to the training's assumptions, just that their statements "can support that structural system of white supremacy," Colloton wrote.

The plaintiffs lack legal standing because having to "endure a two-hour training program that they and others thought was misguided and offensive" is not a "penalty" in the way that being "forced to wear an arm-band classifying them as white supremacists" would be. They were never called "unprofessional," so their speech was not reasonably chilled, the opinion reads.

But the panel rebuked U.S. District Judge Douglas Harpool, a five-time Missouri House Democrat, for finding their suit was "frivolous," saying that the "doctrines of compelled speech, chilled speech, and Article III standing are nuanced and often difficult to apply."

Neither party cited precedent on "how those doctrines apply to training of public employees – especially controversial training" like the district's antiracism seminar, which can be "fairly described as an issue of first impression with room for plausible disagreement," the judges said.

While Harpool alleged the "political undertones" of the suit "trivialized" his work, "plaintiffs long have pressed the limits of the case-or-controversy requirement in disputes relating to issues of the day," the 8th Circuit said, citing most recently a group of doctors unsuccessfully challenging federal relaxation of restrictions on abortion pills.

The judiciary must "reiterate the properly limited role of the courts in a democratic society, but a plaintiff’s unsuccessful effort to push the boundaries does not warrant an award of fees without a stronger showing of frivolity than the defendants presented here," Colloton wrote.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, which represents the educators, said it was reviewing the decision.

"We are pleased that the 8th Circuit federal panel reversed the district court’s decision to award the school district nearly $313,000 in attorney’s fees, reinforcing the ability of public employees to bring First Amendment lawsuits with respect to ever-expanding anti-racist, equity, and diversity trainings," Executive Director Kim Hermann wrote in an email.

"SLF will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Brooke Henderson, Jennifer Lumley, and all those who have been pressured, as a condition of their employment, to speak about so-called anti-racism are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution," she said, thanking 20 states and 16 organizations for their "overwhelming support" in friend-of-the-court briefs.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the ACLU and others against the fee penalty, said in response: "No American should face crushing attorney’s fees awards for merely attempting to hold government officials accountable.

"The risk of bearing those fees will discourage victims from seeking justice – justice they would not have had to seek had the government not violated their rights," the conservative group said. "The 8th Circuit’s decision protects every American’s right to pursue legal action to vindicate their fundamental freedoms."