Filed on Monday evening. I present this without comment on the substantive merits of the claim or on the morality of the speech at issue.
Three things of note:
• The Complaint is surprisingly restrained, given the high-profile nature of the case and the perverse incentives for the plaintiff and the attorney in such a case. No over-the-top rhetoric, no performative outrage, no pleading-as-press-release. The statement is short-and-plain--six pages (plus eight pages of exhibits).
• The Complaint does not quote or describe the statements at issue. Paragraph 16 characterizes the statements ("racial slurs, gender-based slurs, antisemitic rhetoric, and anti-LGBTQ language"), then alleges that none falls within a category of unprotected speech. Is that sufficient? Must the complaint plead the actual statements (or do more than characterize) in order for the court to evaluate whether they are protected? For present purposes, it is enough to know that racist, sexist, antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ+ speech is not per se unprotected by the First Amendment; something more is required to make the speech punishable. The case will turn on whether that "something more" was present on that group chat). Given that legal framework, has plaintiff done enough to state a plausible claim that the "something more" is absent here and that his speech is the sort of offensive speech that remains protected?
• We have not discussed some unique procedures that govern constitutional litigation, where plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional state law or policy. For the moment, the Complaint is less important than the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction that plaintiff likely will file in the next week or so. This will argue that the speech is protected and will ask the court to stop the investigation while the litigation is pending and until the case can reach a final judgment. The motion previews the merits, asking whether the plaintiff is "likely to succeed on the merits"--whether he is likely to show that his speech is constitutionally protected from government sanction. The grant or denial of that motion is immediately appealable (§ (a)), meaning the case would quickly go to the Eleventh Circuit.
