Also makes clear a Trustee can continue expressing his or her views to the public and seek reelection despite the censure
Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on March 24, 2022. It involved a dispute between the Houston Community College System (HCC), a public entity that operates various community colleges, and David Wilson, one of its elected board members.
The case arose from a series of conflicts between Wilson and his colleagues on the board, who accused him of criticizing their handling of a racial justice protest, misusing HCC funds, and violating HCC policies. In 2017, the board voted to censure Wilson for his conduct, which included a formal reprimand and a restriction on his travel and committee assignments.
Wilson sued HCC, claiming that the censure violated his First Amendment right to free speech, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He argued that the censure was motivated by his dissenting views on matters of public concern, and that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself before the board.
The district court dismissed Wilson’s claims, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Wilson had stated a plausible First Amendment claim and that the censure was not a legislative act immune from judicial review. The Fifth Circuit also held that Wilson had stated a plausible due process claim, because he had a protected property interest in his board position and benefits.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The court unanimously reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and held that the censure did not violate Wilson’s First Amendment rights, because elected bodies have the authority to regulate their own internal affairs and discipline their members for disruptive conduct. The court also held that the censure did not violate Wilson’s due process rights, because he did not have a property interest in his board position or benefits, and because he was given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before the board.
The court’s opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, who emphasized that the First Amendment does not prevent elected bodies from maintaining order and civility among their members, and that judicial intervention in such matters would undermine the separation of powers and democratic accountability. The opinion also noted that Wilson could still express his views to the public and seek reelection despite the censure.
The court’s decision was consistent with its previous decisions that have upheld the power of government institutions to impose reasonable restrictions on speech within their own domains, such as public schools, prisons, and workplaces.
Some critics have argued that the decision could undermine the accountability of public officials and discourage them from expressing dissenting views on matters of public concern.
The full opinion may be read by following this link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-804_j426.pdf.