In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided on August 5, 2026, that a town official violated free speech rights by deleting critical comments from a public forum. The case, Elizabeth Schulte v. Kenneth Leners (Docket No. 25-1856), affects local governance and how public officials manage online communication platforms. The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting free speech in public forums, even when the speech is critical of government officials.
The dispute began when Elizabeth Schulte, a co-owner of property in Cedar Lake, Wisconsin, challenged actions taken by Kenneth Leners, the chairman of the Town's Board of Supervisors. In September 2022, Leners posted a notice on the Town's website criticizing the use of recreational vehicles (RVs) in the area. Schulte, who owns an RV, disagreed with Leners and expressed her views in the comment section of the post. This led to a series of deletions of comments, which sparked a legal battle over free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The conflict escalated when Leners responded to Schulte's comment by labeling it “disrespectful” and banning her from commenting further. He also deleted other critical comments and eventually removed the entire comment section from the post after threats of legal action. Schulte filed a lawsuit against Leners and the Town, claiming violations of her constitutional rights, specifically citing viewpoint discrimination and retaliation for her speech.
The case reached the Seventh Circuit after Leners sought to dismiss Schulte's complaint, arguing he was protected by qualified immunity, which shields public officials from liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. The district court denied his motion regarding the deletion of comments but dismissed other counts related to Town policies. Leners and the Town then appealed the decision.
The court ruled that Leners was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that public officials cannot discriminate against speech based on viewpoint in public forums. Judge Frank Easterbrook, along with Judges Pryor and Kolar, emphasized that “when the government hosts speech in a public forum, the First Amendment forbids it from excluding selected speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint.” This ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that public officials must maintain open and fair communication channels with the public.
The court's opinion highlighted that the comment section of the Town's website was a public forum while it was open to all users. The judges agreed with the district court's finding that Leners discriminated against Schulte and others based on their viewpoints when he deleted comments that criticized his position on RV regulations. The court noted that Leners' actions were not only unjustified but also legally indefensible, as he labeled dissenting opinions as “offensive” and “derogatory,” which the Supreme Court has previously ruled against.
In its ruling, the court stated, “It was clearly established in September 2022 that a local government violates the First Amendment when it hosts private speech on its official website, lacks any policy or history of regulating that speech, and regulates based on its viewpoint.” This assertion clarifies the legal expectations for public officials managing online forums and sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond this case, as it reinforces the protection of free speech in local governance and online platforms. Public officials must now be more cautious in how they manage public comments and interactions on official websites, ensuring that they do not engage in viewpoint discrimination. This decision could impact how towns and municipalities across the country approach online communication and public forums.
Moving forward, the ruling may lead to changes in how local governments manage their online presence and engage with the public. It serves as a reminder that while public officials have the authority to moderate discussions, they cannot silence dissenting voices based on personal disagreements. The decision also highlights the importance of maintaining a transparent and open dialogue between government officials and the communities they serve.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if the Town or Leners will seek further appeals. The court dismissed the Town's appeal from the case, affirming the district court's decision regarding Leners' lack of qualified immunity. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the ruling may inspire other individuals to challenge similar actions taken by public officials in different jurisdictions.