Angela Reading v. North Hanover Township, New Jersey, et al.

Camden, New Jersey civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff seeking an injunction to protect her First Amendments rights to free speech.



Angela Reading, a mother and former school board member, alleged that federal and local government officials violated her right to free speech by engaging in a campaign of censorship and retaliation after she posted comments on Facebook. She requested a preliminary injunction to prohibit those officials from further interfering with her First Amendment rights.



The controversy that gave rise to this case unfolded at the Upper Elementary School (UES or School) in the North

Hanover Township School District. As part of its 2022 "Week of Respect,” the School invited students to design posters

"demonstrat[ing] that UES [is] a safe place where everyone [is] accepted.” App. 185. Some students offered "messages of

general acceptance,” while others supported more specific causes. Id.



One such poster, anchored in the center by the acronyms "LGBTQ” and "UES,” featured descriptions of various sexual

identities and their corresponding flags. App. 125. The poster included a "bi” flag, a "genderfluid” flag, and a "polysexual” flag, among others. Id. It announced that "different is cool” and instructed students that "you are who you are.” Id.



Angela Reading first saw the poster when she attended the School's "Math Night.” App. 123. After her seven-year-old

daughter asked what the word "polysexual” meant, she was "livid.” Id. She took her concerns to social media. In a lengthy

post to the "NJ Fresh Faced Schools” Facebook page, Reading wondered why an elementary school would permit its students

to "research topics of sexuality,” and worried that adults were "talking about their sexual life” with her children. Id. She called the poster "perverse” and argued that it "should be illegal to expose my kids to sexual content.” Id. Although

"[k]ids should respect differences,” Reading explained, they "should not be forced to learn about and accept concepts of

sexuality in elementary school.” Id. Reading concluded the post by noting that her comments were "made in [her] capacity

as a private citizen and not in [her] capacity as a [school] board member.” App. 125.



Reading's post quickly drew the ire of military personnel at nearby Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst, some

of whom had children at the School. Major Chris Schilling was especially fixated on the post. In an email to local parents, Schilling complained that Reading's post was "filled with too many logical fallacies to list.” App. 126. He accused her of "try[ing] to over sexualize things” to "give her arguments more power,” insisting that she did "not hav[e] the proper resources and/or education on the matter.” Id. Schilling was "very concern[ed]” that Reading served as a local school board member.



* * *

Reading’s allegations are serious and raise important questions under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Reading expressed concern about whether her

seven-year-old daughter was being exposed to sexual topics that have no place in an elementary school. Regardless of whether one agrees with Reading’s concern, the record suggests that Defendants’ response to her blog post was, to put

it mildly, disproportionate. Although that past conduct may very well result in remedies for damages or declaratory relief, this narrow appeal concerns only Reading’s standing to seek a preliminary injunction. And because Reading has not shown a likelihood of future injury, she lacks standing to seek that form

of relief. We will affirm the District Court’s order denying eading’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion