This case, Citizens Defending Freedom, et. al. v. Arlington Independent School District. No. 4:24-CV-00585-O, 2025 WL 2468202 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2025), originated in state court as a challenge under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), alleging that a school district violated public meeting requirements while preparing to respond to a state executive order prohibiting COVID-19 mandates. The plaintiffs claimed that district officials coordinated an emergency board meeting without properly informing all trustees or the public, and that the meeting was later canceled without transparency. A subsequent meeting was held with proper notice, where the board ultimately voted against pursuing legal action. The plaintiffs filed suit in January 2024, asserting that the earlier actions violated TOMA.
Separately, the plaintiffs alleged retaliation under federal law after one individual submitted multiple grievances to the school district seeking policy changes. Following a hearing in early 2024, the board issued a written opinion clarifying its grievance procedures, emphasizing that grievances must demonstrate personal harm and cannot seek advisory opinions. After this clarification, several of the individual’s grievances were dismissed. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to include federal retaliation claims, prompting removal to federal court.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the TOMA claim. The plaintiffs alleged that district business was conducted outside a properly noticed meeting, but the court found that only two board members had discussed the potential lawsuit, which did not constitute a quorum as defined by TOMA. The plaintiffs attempted to introduce new legal theories under different TOMA provisions in their response, but the court ruled these were not properly raised in the complaint and could not be considered. Additionally, the court determined that the emergency meeting in question met the statutory notice requirements. As a result, the plaintiffs’ TOMA claim failed, and the court did not address the defendants’ remaining arguments regarding mootness and immunity.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the plaintiffs’ ultra vires and First Amendment claims. The ultra vires claim failed because it was predicated on an alleged violation of TOMA, which the court had already found unsubstantiated. Regarding the First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court held that the superintendent was entitled to qualified immunity, as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clearly established constitutional violation. Additionally, the court found no basis for municipal liability against the school district, concluding that the adoption of the grievance policy and dismissal of grievances did not constitute retaliation or violate constitutional rights. The court emphasized that the First Amendment does not guarantee a right to government response or engagement with specific individuals, and that the district acted within its legal authority.
Don’t miss out on ED311 blog posts! Subscribe to the ED311 newsletter.