MOMS FOR LIBERTY - WILSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE; ROBIN LEMONS; AMANDA DUNAGAN-PRICE v. WILSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, dba Wilson County Schools; JAMIE FAROUGH, individually and in her official capacity as the Chair and member of the Wilson County Board of Education; KIMBERLY MCGEE, in her official capacity as the Vice Chair and member of the Wilson County Board of Education; MELISSA LYNN, BETH MEYERS, JOSEPH PADILLA, GREG HOHMAN, and DONNIE SELF, in their official capacities as members of the Wilson County Board of Education - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Sep 9, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Christopher C. Hayden, SELLERS, CRAIG, AND HAYDEN, INC., Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., John I. Harris, SCHULMAN, LEROY & BENNETT PC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Christopher C. Hayden, SELLERS, CRAIG, AND HAYDEN, INC., Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellees.

Judge(s): STRANCH, THAPAR, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, relies on the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause to challenge rules governing public comments at a school board’s public meetings. During regularly scheduled meetings, the Wilson County Board of Education permits public comments that comply with the Board’s rules, which are set forth in Policy 1.404 and the script the Board’s Chair reads at the beginning of each public comment period. Robin Lemons, Amanda Dunagan-Price, and Moms for Liberty — Wilson County, TN (the “Wilson County Chapter”) challenged three of those rules on First Amendment grounds and moved the district court to enjoin them while the case proceeded. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.