Legislator Asks Court to Dismiss Cheerleader's 'Take a Knee' Suit
Outgoing lawmaker Earl Ehrhart contends that the constitutional rights of student athletes at public colleges and universities are more limited than their fellow students because they are representatives of government-funded institutions and, by extension, of the government that funds them.
October 19, 2018 at 03:44 PM
4 minute read
A Georgia legislator accused of conspiring with a local sheriff to bar college cheerleaders from kneeling during the national anthem has asked a federal judge to dismiss the claim, contending that student athletes' constitutional rights are more limited than those afforded to the student body at large.
State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, a Cobb County Republican who is retiring from the Georgia General Assembly this year, contended in a motion filed Wednesday that student athletes who attend state-funded universities are excluded from the constitutional right to free speech afforded by the First Amendment because they are representatives of their colleges or universities—and by extension means the government that funds them.
While private speech is a constitutional right, government speech shares no similar protections, Ehrhart's motion to dismiss argues.
The suit, pending in federal court in Atlanta, was brought by KSU cheerleader Tommia Dean, one of five African-American cheerleaders who knelt on the field during the national anthem at a football game last year. It also names Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren, former KSU president Sam Olens—now a Dentons partner in Atlanta—and two members of KSU's athletic department as defendants. Only Ehrhart has responded to the suit.
Dean, now a KSU sophomore, was not selected as a cheerleader this year. Her fellow cheerleaders who knelt with her were all seniors and have graduated. Dean's suit claims that the defendant public and university officials violated her constitutional free speech right when the kneeling cheerleaders were barred from the field until after the anthem was played, effectively silencing the group. The ban was implemented after they knelt in solidarity with former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's similar demonstration to protest police brutality.
Dean's suit also claims that Ehrhart and Warren also violated the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, by conspiring to violate her constitutional rights or exert pressure on other public officials to do so. Dean is represented by Atlanta attorney Bruce Brown. The case has been assigned to Judge Timothy Batten of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Ehrhart has served as the House Republican whip, as Rules Committee chairman and chairman of the higher education appropriations subcommittee before announcing his retirement from the Legislature last spring to become CEO of a lobbying firm associated with Atlanta's Taylor English Duma. His wife, Ginny, is running for his vacated seat.
Ehrhart attorney, Jonathan Crumly of Taylor English, argued in an Oct. 17 motion to dismiss the plaintiff “was not engaged in private speech when she kneeled during the national anthem on the restricted portion of the field of a government-owned football stadium, at a government-sponsored event, as a member of a government sponsored and regulated student athletic organization.”
“Rather, [she] was engaged in government speech, which the free speech clause does not regulate in any fashion,” he said.
“Despite the many misguided beliefs surrounding the concept of free speech, the words guaranteeing a person the right freely to speak their mind are neither literal nor absolute,” Crumly wrote.
In asking to dismiss the case, Crumly contended that KSU “was within its rights to restrict the expression of student athletes representing KSU, wearing KSU uniforms, and engaging in KSU-sponsored activities during a KSU event within a restricted area of a KSU owned football stadium.”
“The field and the surrounding stadium is government land, owned and operated by, and associated with, an arm of the state,” Ehrhart's motion added. “As a result, [Dean's] on-field protest carries with it more association with the school itself than it does the particular individual carrying out the protest.”
Crumly added that constitutional rights are “subject to reasonable limitations” that are “more pronounced in the context of a student athlete at a college or university” whose rights “are less protected than those enjoyed by the general public.”
“By choosing to 'go out for the team,' [student athletes] subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally,” he said. “They voluntarily subject themselves to speech codes, curfews, requirements of good sportsmanship and even limitations on access to internet websites and social media services.”
Athletes may choose to exercise their right to speak, “but such speech will have consequences that may appear to conflict with the First Amendment,” he concluded.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250