William Felkner is a self-described conservative libertarian. He was also an aspiring social worker. For anyone who has worked in similar fields like public health or social services, William’s philosophical and political ideas are a rarity. Unlike many of his colleagues, he believes that the interests of those who benefit from social service are best advanced through policies that foster self-sufficiency. Most in the profession, however, express more leftist outlooks, favoring a predictable menu of big-government interventions.
William knew this when he applied and was enrolled at Rhode Island College’s (RIC) School of Social Work as a graduate student. He understood that pursuing a master’s degree in the profession as a right-of-center individual would inevitably come with disagreements, especially with those already in the field. William wasn’t discouraged—he believes that disagreement is healthy in a democratic society like ours, and he hoped his ideas would be taken seriously as he stood ready to consider the differing views of others in reasoned debate.
Unfortunately, William’s time at RIC would be anything but reasonable.
Case Summary
Rather than engage with William’s minority viewpoints in good faith, professors and administrators at RIC were actively hostile, and eventually drove him out of the graduate program. Among other things, the college told William he wasn’t “cut out” to be a social worker because his views were not mainstream. They subjected him to discriminatory grading, initiated disciplinary action against him, and even compelled him to mouth agreement with social policies he did not support. RIC even imposed requirements that William actually lobby state legislators to pass bills he thought were terrible ideas.
When William sued RIC for violating his First Amendment rights, the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed he had been unjustly treated. And yet, the state’s high court gave the college a free pass. Why? Why did they think RIC should get away with such blatant disregard for the Constitution and William’s right to free speech?
Two words: qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity essentially allows government actors to escape liability, despite the fact that they have been found to have violated a person’s constitutional rights. Under the doctrine, if a government actor can convince a court that the law was not “clearly established” at the time they violated the individual’s rights and liberties, they can be absolved of their responsibility.
Now, William has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of the United States to take his appeal, arguing that RIC should not benefit from qualified immunity. Whatever validity the doctrine may have in some areas, it is inappropriate to apply it toward public schools and the First Amendment.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s at Stake
The doctrine of qualified immunity should not be applied to First Amendment claims.
Qualified immunity historically developed in a different context. Originally, it was meant to protect law enforcement officers who faced split-second decisions—often with life-or-death consequences—from personal liability, if they made what later turned out to be the wrong decision. Because of the overriding importance of public safety, there is a reasonable argument that law enforcement officers might be given some leeway in making their decisions, lest they constantly second-guess themselves in the field, leading to overly cautious (and potentially dangerous) policing. In other words, the rationale for qualified immunity is that only hindsight is 20/20.
The doctrine of qualified immunity is controversial, however, even in the context of law enforcement officers who face split-second decisions. But whatever the validity of the doctrine in life-or-death scenarios for police work, it is inappropriate to apply qualified immunity to free speech claims against education bureaucrats. Government actors who make decisions affecting Americans’ free speech rights are not required to make split second decisions, let alone decisions that may have deadly consequences, if incorrect.
Even if the doctrine of qualified immunity is worth preserving for some purposes—an issue that is in significant dispute—it cannot be a blank check for government actors to recklessly push the boundaries of their authority, and when caught, say, “Oops. Sorry about that.” There is little reason to give government officials breathing room to violate the free speech rights of American citizens.
Government actors should err on the side of liberty and steer clear of the constitutional boundaries they are obligated to respect. The doctrine of qualified immunity flips this logic on its head, and actually encourages government actors to get as close to the line as possible, and to even cross it. In that sense, every American’s right is implicated in William Felkner’s fight with RIC.
That’s why Mountain States is offering an amicus curiae brief in support of William Felkner to remove qualified immunity from First Amendment claims.
Case Timeline
- August 2004: William enrolls at RIC’s School of Social Work
- March 2008: William is dismissed from the program after constant harassment from RIC and violations of his free speech rights
- March 2019: After a lengthy legal process, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rules in William’s favor, holding that his free speech rights have been violated. However, the Court does not issue a remedy, instead remanding to the trial court to consider whether to apply the doctrine of qualified immunity to RIC’s officials
- April 2023: The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejects William’s claim, agreeing with the trial court’s decision to apply qualified immunity, and giving RIC a free pass for its constitutional violations
- September 2023: William petitions the Supreme Court of the United States to take up his case on appeal
- October 2023: Mountain States, Americans for Prosperity, and the Manhattan Institute jointly file an amicus curiae brief in support of William Felkner, urging the Supreme Court to take his appeal
- February 2023: The Supreme Court of the United States denied William’s petition to hear the case, letting the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision stand.