In Cocchini v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, (MD TN, Feb. 6, 2025), a Tennessee federal district court held that plaintiff, a Christian evangelist, had successfully stated a claim for violation of his 1st Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff was asked by a police officer to leave a Pride Festival after he began to share his Christian testimony with two women at a church booth. When he refused to leave, he was arrested. He sued, contending that the police officer discriminated against him by impermissibly regulating his speech conducted in a public forum. The police office asserted a defense of qualified immunity. The court said in part:
Here, Cocchini has alleged facts plausibly demonstrating that the Park remained a public forum throughout Franklin Pride....
There are two competing stories for Cocchini’s exclusion from the Park. Officer Spry says he removed Cocchini from the public forum, causing him to cease his peaceful invited religious speech, apparently for violating Tennessee’s criminal trespass law.... However, the Complaint alleges that Officer Spry told Cocchini on the day of his arrest, and under oath, that he arrested Cocchini because a Franklin Pride TN security event coordinator wanted him removed..... Taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, Cocchini sufficiently asserts that the justification for his exclusion from the Park, and arrest, was based on the content of his speech....
If the arrest was to “avoid offense to gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals,” as the Complaint alleges, such an interest (compelling or not) is not narrowly tailored by arresting individuals like Cocchini who express religious views....
... [I]if as Cocchini alleges, Officer Spry arrested him “because of the content of his speech,” then he “acted in violation of the First Amendment in ways that should have been clear to a reasonable officer.” ... This is a disputed issue of fact such that “development of the factual record is [] necessary to decide whether [Officer Spry’s] actions violated clearly established law.” ...
The court however dismissed plaintiff's equal protection claim which was based only on the alleged violation of his 1st Amendment rights.