In the ongoing federal lawsuit challenging district usage of Gaggle software, both USD497 and plaintiffs have now filed additional legal arguments. The filings address plaintiffs’ concerns about prior restrictions on The Budget’s free press rights. They follow an Aug. 19 order that overruled plaintiffs’ ex parte TRO request and deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction until defendants were served and could respond.
The district filed its response Aug. 29. In that filing, defendants argue the issue is now moot and emphasizes that no current restriction exists, relying on a same-day memo; the brief does not deny whether a prior directive existed.
Supporting declarations by LHS Principal Quentin Rials and Superintendent Jeanice Swift emphasize defendants “have no intention” of restricting student reporting, or taking adverse employment action against journalism adviser Abbi Epperson-Ladd. Both declarations point to an Aug. 15 “Clarification of Expectations” memo stating: “No school or district official will prohibit, delay, condition or otherwise restrain any student journalist or journalism adviser from lawful reporting on any subject going forward.”
In the Aug. 19 order, the court noted defendants had rescinded the ban, declined on this record to attribute statements by a teachers’ union representative to the district, and pointed to a Kansas statute that protects journalism advisers from adverse employment action for refusing to abridge student press rights.
In their reply brief filed Sept. 5, plaintiffs argue the case is not moot under the voluntary-cessation doctrine—i.e., the district’s assurances do not “completely and irrevocably eradicate” the effects of the alleged violation—and maintain that the Aug. 15 memo did not prevent renewed pressure that same morning.
Plaintiffs proposed a short consent order that closely tracks the memo’s non-restraint language. Defense counsel Alan Rupe declined on Sept. 5, stating the district would not agree to a consent order; plaintiffs cite that refusal as reason an enforceable order remains necessary.
According to plaintiff’s reply brief, this refusal undercuts the district’s claim that the issue is resolved. Additionally, plaintiffs contend the Aug. 15 memo did not prevent renewed pressure that morning, offering it as evidence that an order remains warranted.
What’s next: The court has not yet ruled on the preliminary-injunction request. Under the Aug. 19 order, the issue was deferred until after defendants responded; briefing concluded Sept. 5. The Budget will continue reporting based on public records and what happens in court.
