Professor Frampton Wins First Stage of Court Battle
Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liaison Editor
It took a few months, but the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled in Professor Thomas Frampton’s favor. Judge John W. deGravelles released a long, careful opinion that largely agreed with Professor Frampton’s arguments and granted the preliminary injunction his First Amendment retaliation suit requested. The case is still going forward, and will continue to do so unless the defendants agree to settle. But the court’s receptiveness to Professor Frampton’s position suggests that he has a good chance of prevailing on the merits.
Pictured: Professor Frampton winning a Louisiana client their freedom in a seperate case. Photo from UVA Today, https://news.virginia.edu/content.
Professor Frampton filed the suit in federal court back in June 2021. It arose out of a Louisiana pro bono case. After Baton Rouge police officers stopped a car, strip-searched two of its passengers, and then searched their home, Professor Frampton agreed to represent the passengers (who were brothers) in a civil rights lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled in May 2021. But the Baton Rouge Police Department did not discipline officers or even open an investigation in the aftermath. Hoping to “get some accountability,” Professor Frampton and the plaintiffs’ family decided to put out a press release that linked to a video of the brothers’ search and arrest.
The next day, on May 28, 2021, the East Baton Rouge Parish Attorney’s Office served Professor Frampton with a show cause motion seeking to hold him in contempt for releasing the video footage. One of the brothers was a juvenile, and the accusation was that Professor Frampton had violated a statute requiring records of juvenile court proceedings to be kept confidential. Alarmed, Professor Frampton put together a legal team and filed a suit in federal court alleging that the Parish and two individual defendants were retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.
As law students might expect, Professor Frampton moved for a preliminary injunction and the defendants moved to dismiss. Motions to dismiss are normally considered solely by reference to the pleadings, but the court elected to rule on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a preliminary injunction together. Evidentiary hearings were held via Zoom, and by early October the parties were submitting their final briefs.
But the issues were complicated, and Judge deGravelles had trials to attend to, so the parties then had to wait several months for a ruling, instead of the usual matter of weeks or days. As he waited, Professor Frampton described himself as optimistic, or at least “not super worried.” It helped that the delay had no adverse effects. Judge deGravelles made it clear that the state court should put off hearing the case, so in effect, Professor Frampton had a kind of informal interim preliminary injunction.
When the opinion was handed down on January 7th, it was worth the wait. In a scrupulously careful ninety-two-page opinion, Judge deGravelles decided that Professor Frampton “ha[d] clearly met his burden to show Defendant’s bad faith.” Significantly, the defendants had only taken action against Professor Frampton, even though others had committed “identical violations” of the statute. The court also found it noteworthy that the contempt motion was filed immediately after the press release, and that the defendants did not drop the charge even after finding out that Professor Frampton had the permission of the brothers shown in the video, one of whom was the juvenile in question.
The finding of bad faith meant that an exception to Younger abstention, which generally requires federal courts to stay out of ongoing state proceedings, applied.[1] In addition, it meant that the first element necessary for granting a preliminary injunction, likelihood of success on the merits, was satisfied. The other elements were found present in a straightforward fashion: Professor Frampton had already suffered irreparable harm, a chilling effect on his free speech. He faced potential jail time, which tilted the balance of hardships in his favor. And there was no reason to think that granting an injunction would harm the public interest.
So what happens next? My (in)experience led me to think that parties often start settlement talks when a preliminary injunction is handed down. But the Parish is not backing down yet. On January 20, the defendants filed an answer, the next step required after a motion to dismiss is denied. But at least Professor Frampton is safe from being held in contempt for now. And even though Professor Frampton would much prefer to have the case over with, he has found it a valuable experience being on the other side of the lawyer-client relationship. Obviously, being a plaintiff/defendant is quite different from being the lawyer representing a party, particularly in the increased impatience you feel as a client. So despite its inconvenience and stress, the ordeal should ultimately benefit the lucky students and clients who get to work with Professor Frampton this semester and beyond.
---
js3hp@virginia.edu
[1] Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).