Cajune v. Independent School District 194

Background

Following George Floyd’s murder, Independent School District 194 authorized and paid for an “Inclusive Poster Series” for display in its schools. Two of the eight posters included the phrase “Black Lives Matter” and stated that Lakeville Area Schools believed Black lives matter and stood with the social-justice movement represented by that statement. The posters also said the message aligned with school-board policy and the District’s commitment to Black students, staff, and community members.

The plaintiffs included Bob and Cynthia Cajune, Kalynn Kay Aaker on behalf of minor plaintiffs, LION 194, John Doe #1, and Mary Roe #1–7. They alleged that the posters conveyed a political ideology and that the District violated the First Amendment by displaying them while refusing requests to display messages such as “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter.” They also claimed that public funds were used to support unwanted political advocacy.

The defendants were Independent School District 194 and Doug Van Zyl, or any successor, in his official capacity as superintendent. They moved to dismiss. The unnamed adult plaintiffs separately sought permission to proceed under pseudonyms.

Pseudonym motion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires a complaint to name all parties, and the court described a strong presumption against anonymity. The court considered whether the plaintiffs were challenging government activity, whether the case required disclosure of highly intimate information, and whether the plaintiffs faced a risk of criminal prosecution for intended illegal conduct.

The court concluded that only the first factor was arguably present. It found that the unnamed plaintiffs’ references to “cancel culture,” incidents outside the District, and alleged past interference with school-board meeting access did not establish the rare circumstances needed for public anonymity. The court also noted that the named plaintiffs had litigated two federal lawsuits asserting their viewpoints for nearly two years without apparent incident. The motion to proceed pseudonymously was denied. The court stated that this ruling concerned the unnamed adult plaintiffs; the minor plaintiffs could proceed using their initials.

Standing

The defendants argued that Bob and Cynthia Cajune and Kalynn Kay Aaker lacked standing. Standing is the required personal interest that allows a plaintiff to invoke federal jurisdiction. The court explained that municipal taxpayers may have standing when they are taxpayers of the municipality and allege that the municipality spent tax revenue on the challenged action.

The court held that the Cajunes and Aaker adequately alleged municipal taxpayer standing at the pleading stage. They alleged that they paid taxes, including property taxes, to the District and that the District spent taxpayer funds on the poster series. The court rejected the argument that the alleged spending was too small to support standing, noting that the defendants cited no controlling authority establishing such an exception and that the pleadings did not establish the amount spent.

The court also concluded that the dispute remained a live controversy because the challenged posters were not shown to have been displayed only during a school year that had ended. The court did not dismiss the case for lack of standing on the grounds raised by the defendants.

Government speech and the First Amendment claims

The court applied the government-speech doctrine. Under that doctrine, when the government speaks for itself, its speech generally is not subject to First Amendment challenges. To determine whether expression is government speech, the court considered the expression’s history, the public’s likely perception of who was speaking, and the extent to which the government shaped or controlled the expression.

First, the court found that schools traditionally communicate with students through posters and other displays on school property. The District reviewed and authorized the poster series to support staff in creating school communities where students were respected, valued, and welcome. The court concluded that the history of the series showed that it was developed as a way for the District to communicate with students.

Second, the court found that the posters would likely be perceived as messages from the District rather than unidentified private political actors. The posters bore the District’s logo, slogan, and website link, and expressly stated that the District stood by the message. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase “Black Lives Matter” could not be government speech because they viewed it as inseparably connected to private political expression. The court also rejected a proposed exception for political speech, explaining that government speech can address political issues.

Third, the court found that the District shaped and controlled the posters. The District used a review process involving students, staff, school leaders, the school board, community advisory groups, and others. The District considered changes based on feedback about representation in the posters, authorized the series, and retained final authority over whether the posters could be displayed. Allowing teachers to choose which posters to display, if any, did not eliminate the District’s control.

The court therefore held that the Inclusive Poster Series, including the two “Black Lives Matter” posters, was government speech not subject to the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge. The plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims were dismissed.

Disposition

The order denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously, granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint with prejudice in its entirety. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.