Identifying a right to be free from retaliatory restriction on speech, a federal appeals court ruled that a township official was nonetheless immune from liability when he told local residents not to contact him or other town leaders about a property dispute.

The Third Circuit ruled last week that the official had violated a Pennsylvania couple’s rights with his “no contact” email, but that the right was not clearly established in the law at the time. Under the circumstances, the appeals court said, the official was entitled to a qualified immunity.

The case arose from a dispute between the Mirabellas and their neighbors over public wetlands abutting their properties. They said their neighbors extended their backyards into public wetlands by fencing open space, erecting playground equipment and landscaping the area.

They complained to Montgomery Township, Pennsylvania, which owns the wetlands. But after some negotiations, the township supervisors gave the neighbors permission to clear the open space.

The Mirabellas, who are attorneys, said they would sue their neighbors and the township for “encroachment and destruction” of the open space. Walsh, who was chairman of the board, responded with an email that said:

The Mirabellas then filed a federal complaint for violations of their First Amendment rights, alleging that Walsh and the township had infringed on their rights to free speech and to petition the government. A trial judge rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Free From Retaliatory Restriction

On appeal, the Third Circuit reluctantly reversed. The court said the “no contact” email infringed the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, but that the right had not been “clearly established” in the law at the time.

“(W)e define the right at issue as the right to be free from a retaliatory restriction on communication with one’s own government, when the plaintiff has threatened or engaged in litigation against the government,” Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo wrote for the unanimous court.

However, the court said, the township was immune because that right was not clear before the “no contact” email. No case or law had articulated the right prior to the Third Circuit ruling.

Related Resources:

  • Pennsylvania Legal Research (FindLaw’s Cases & Codes)
  • Fair Housing Claims Survive Death of a Party (FindLaw U.S. Third Circuit Blog)
  • Age Bias Is Actionable in Sub-Groups, 3rd Cir. Rules (FindLaw U.S. Third Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules