A federal appeals court sided with a conservative group in its clash with a Florida school board over how it was dealing with critics who were attending its board meetings.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sided Tuesday with Moms for Liberty in a challenge against Brevard County School Board’s public comment policies, ruling that they contained “muddled definitions” that chilled speech.

Moms for Liberty, a group largely responsible for the politicization of school boards, argued that the chair of the Brevard County School Board inconsistently enforced public comment rules, which led to its group members self-censoring.

In a 2-1 decision, Judge Britt Grant, writing for the majority, wrote that then-board chair Misty Haggard Belford enforced an “unreasonable” policy meant to prohibit public comments that were “abusive,” “personally directed,” or “obscene.”

“The government has relatively broad power to restrict speech in limited public forums — but that power is not unlimited,” Grant wrote.

“Speech restrictions must still be reasonable, viewpoint-neutral, and clear enough to give speakers notice of what speech is permissible. The Board’s policies for public participation at Board meetings did not live up to those standards,” she continued.

The appellate court ruling reversed a district judge’s conclusion that the board’s policies and enforcement were constitutional. Moms for Liberty argued Belford’s enforcement of the policies was “confusing at best,” and that what was censored one day might not be censored the next.

“Asking if the Board’s approach to this policy was ‘haphazard’ is like asking if the sky is blue —enforcement was so inconsistent that it is impossible to discern the standard used to assess which speech was permitted at any given meeting.”

In light of the appellate court’s ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida must reevaluate the case.

“Belford’s own inability to define the policy that she was tasked with enforcing speaks volumes,” Grant wrote. “The track record of this policy’s enforcement mirrors Belford’s muddled definition. Sometimes just mentioning someone’s name was enough to provoke interruption, but other times using a name was met with no resistance.”

The dispute dates to 2021 and highlighted at least 109 times a Moms for Liberty member spoke. In four of those instances, a Moms for Liberty group member was interrupted and one was removed from a meeting.

The plaintiffs argued they self-censored their speech because of the policies and that the board chair warned attendees that “disruptions” could result in criminal sanctions including 60 days in jail and a $500 fine, according to court documents.

“The plaintiffs also claim that they have witnessed the Board interrupt and berate speakers — including other Moms for Liberty members — for violating the policies,” Grant wrote.

“Any threat of interruption or removal from meetings on account of these policies, the Board argues, is too minimal to really have had a chilling effect. And, the Board says, Moms for Liberty has failed to show any past injuries from the Board’s enforcement actions. We disagree.”

Grant wrote that a policy is unreasonable if it does not include definitions, offers no official guidance, and “vests too much discretion in those charged with its application.”

“We have no trouble concluding that the operation of the Board’s policies governing participation in the public comment portions of their meetings objectively chills expression,” Grant wrote.

Grant wrote that the policy enabled Belford to “shut down speakers whenever she saw their messages as offensive,” although the court did not see evidence of viewpoint-based discrimination.

“The only question is whether the policy was reasonable. It was not,” Grant wrote.

Speakers mentioned in the court opinion were criticizing mask mandates, calling them a “simple ploy to silence our opposition to this evil LGBTQ agenda,” and people criticizing gender in school bathrooms.

“No one likes to be called evil, but it is not ‘abusive’ to use that term.” the court wrote.

“To be sure, sometimes meetings can get tense — no one enjoys being called out negatively, and some may even dislike public praise. But that is the price of admission under the First Amendment.”

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, said the case ensures accountability of the government.

“The brave members in this case made this 11th Circuit victory possible! They ensured that parents have the right to hold their school boards and government accountable,” Justice said in an email to the Phoenix. “This win underscores that when we refuse to be silenced, we not only reclaim our voices, but also reinforce the bedrock American right of free speech. We must all stand firm against any encroachment on our fundamental rights, especially on matters concerning our children’s education.”

The Institute for Free Speech represented Moms for Liberty in the case. Its message after the ruling, “Public school boards can’t muzzle moms.”

“This ruling reaffirms that the First Amendment protects the right of parents and community members to criticize school officials and express their views on controversial topics at school board meetings,” said Alan Gura, a litigator for the Institute for Free Speech, in a news release. “Parents have a right to address their elected officials and express opinions about their children’s education without fear of censorship.”

School board members named in the suit Matt Susin and Katye Campbell did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did current chair Megan Wright, who is endorsed by Moms for Liberty.

Full story at Florida Phoenix