Houston Community College System v. Wilson

“In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers—and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”

Respondent was elected to the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System (HCC), a public entity that operates various community colleges. Because he often disagreed with the Board about the best interests of HCC, respondent challenged the Board’s actions in media outlets and state-court actions alike. After two years of escalating disagreements, the Board adopted a public resolution censuring respondent for conduct that the Board deemed “not consistent with the best interests of [HCC]” and “not only inappropriate, but reprehensible.” Respondent amended the pleadings in one of his pending lawsuits to add claims against HCC and the other trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Respondent alleged that the Board’s censure violated the First Amendment. The district court concluded that respondent lacked Article III standing and thus granted HCC’s motion to dismiss. The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that respondent could pursue a First Amendment claim based on a purely verbal censure. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that respondent did not possess an actionable First Amendment claim arising from the Board’s purely verbal censure. The Court explained that the censure at issue “was a form of speech by elected representatives” that “concerned the public conduct of another elected representative.” Moreover, the Court emphasized that respondent’s concession that “the content of the censure would not have offended the First Amendment if it had been packaged differently.” The Court concluded that “argument and counterargument, not litigation, are the weapons available for resolving this dispute.” Reversed.