I'm not sure how far Newton, Iowa is from River City, but like that town in the Music Man, there is trouble in Newton – trouble with a capital "T" and that rhymes with Section 1983 (with sincere apologies to Meredith Wilson).
The trouble in question arises from a Newton City Council Meeting where Newton Police Chief Rob Burdess, acting at the direction of Mayor Michael Hansen, arrested Noah Peterson for comments Peterson made during the public comment section of the meeting. After Newton dropped the charges, Peterson filed a civil action for damages under 42 United States Code §1983, contending that Newton, Hansen and Burdess, acting under the color of state law, infringed his constitutional rights. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa agreed, and awarded Petersen summary judgment on his claims.
At the City Council meeting, Petersen used his allotted time to criticize the Newton Police Department about its arrest during a traffic stop of a person named Tayvin Galanakis. The arresting officer, Nathan Winters, was, at the time of the arrest, subject to a "no contact order" stemming from domestic abuse charges. During his comments, Petersen labeled the Newton Police Department as "violent" and "pro domestic abuse." In later comments, Petersen declared that Hansen and Burdess were "fascists" who "need to be removed from power."
Hansen ordered Burdess to arrest Petersen for disorderly conduct, contending that Petersen violated a Newton Rule prohibiting speakers from making "derogatory statements or comments about any individual" during the public comment portion of city council meetings. Once the charges were dismissed, Peterson filed the 1983 action. Section 1983 authorizes suit against any person who, under color of state law, deprives another "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Newton, Hansen and Burdess offered several defenses.
They first argued that Petersen's speech was "defamatory" and not protected by the First Amendment. This defense failed because Petersen's comments about domestic abuse were substantially true, and his fascists comments were protected opinion.
The defendants next argued that they had probable cause for Petersen's arrest, because it was based on his disruptive "conduct," not the content of his speech. But the court wasn't buying it. First, Petersen wasn't disruptive. When the mayor ordered him to stop speaking, he complied. When the Mayor ordered him out of council chambers, he complied with that directive. Petersen also pointed to other speakers who criticized the building inspector. Apparently, only criticism of the police triggered the arrest. This was classic viewpoint discrimination, and clearly violated the First Amendment.
Finally, the defendants claimed they were entitled to "qualified immunity." Qualified immunity applies when public officials don't violate clearly established rights. But the rights the Newton defendants violated were not only clearly established, they were core to the Constitution. As the Court noted, the right to criticize government officials "stands at the core of First Amendment protection." Similarly, viewpoint discrimination is never tolerated under the First Amendment. The Court noted that "the Supreme Court has struck down 'no disparagement' rules on the ground that prohibiting 'derogatory' speech while permitting favorable speech is the 'essence of viewpoint discrimination.'" Court also noted that the right to be free from government retaliation for exercising one's First Amendment rights is clearly established.
For all three reasons, the Court rejected the defenses and awarded Petersen summary judgment. The next step will be for the jury to determine Petersen's damages. For Newton, Hansen and Burdess, that means more trouble with a capital "T," and that rhymes with "C" and that stands for Cash!
