(The Carolina Journal)—A federal judge will allow a Cabarrus County man to proceed with his First Amendment lawsuit against county commissioners. The judge issued an order Wednesday rejecting the county’s motion to have the case dismissed.
James Campbell filed suit against the Cabarrus commissioners and then-Chairman Steve Morris last November. The complaint stemmed from Campbell’s interaction with Morris and the board at an April 15, 2024, meeting. Morris is no longer a Cabarrus commissioner.
During a public comment session, Campbell “began voicing concerns about the removal of his children from his home” by Cabarrus County employees, according to the court order.
Campbell accused one Cabarrus employee of “violating federal law” and described another as a “corrupt DSS worker,” referring to the local Department of Social Services.
A commissioner interrupted the comments to tell Campbell he was violating the county’s public participation policy. The commissioner objected to Campbell mentioning county employees by name. Campbell said he would continue mentioning employees by name until he could read the policy. Sheriff’s deputies eventually escorted Campbell out of the meeting room.
“Plaintiff never received a copy of the Policy, and understood he was banned from attending Board meetings for ninety (90) days,” according to the court order.
Campbell’s lawsuit claimed that the policy violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government.
“In reviewing the language of the Policy, there can be no question the language is facially valid” in light of court precedents, US District Judge John Preston Bailey wrote. “This court is concerned at this stage, however, about arbitrary enforcement of the Policy.”
Immediately after Campbell’s comments, another speaker called a county commissioner “two-face,” Bailey wrote. “No Board member reacts to this comment, and no one references any violation of the Policy.”
“While the Policy’s language may pass muster, the enforcement of the Policy does not at this stage,” he added.
“Further contributing to this court’s hesitation” is the way Morris explained the public participation policy to Campbell, the court order continued.
The policy prohibits personal attacks during public comments, Bailey explained. “Defendant Morris articulated the Policy as prohibiting the ‘naming’ of county employees,” the order continued. “There is a difference between using the name of an employee versus personally attacking an employee.”
“As defendant Morris is the individual charged with enforcing the Policy, it gives this court pause that he would articulate the Policy in the manner he did at the meeting,” Bailey wrote. “Defendant Morris’s articulation of the Policy supports the position that the broad discretion awarded to the Presiding Officer may result in arbitrary enforcement.”
While the lawsuit will move forward on two claims, Bailey dismissed one of Campbell’s issues. He cannot challenge a 90-day ban from attending commissioners’ meetings. The 90-day ban had been mentioned earlier in the April 2024 meeting to another speaker. There is no record of commissioners mentioning a 90-day ban to Campbell.
“Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the notion he was actually banned from attending Board meetings; rather, Plaintiff pleads he ‘understood’ he was banned,” Bailey wrote. “Plaintiff does not allege he was banned by the Board, nor does he plead any facts supportive of the notion he was actually banned from meetings.”
Campbell is working with lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center in pursuing his case.