Update
On March 20, 2025, Judge Robert Summerhays issued a ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgement based on the notion of qualified immunity filed by Robert Judge in our ongoing First Amendment lawsuit against him. In a 25-page memorandum, including 140 footnotes, Judge Summerhays lays out, step by step, why Judge failed to prove his assertions and why the case must be allowed to proceed.
You will remember that we filed this lawsuit back in 2023, in response to Judge’s outrageous attempts to suppress speech he did not agree with at Board of Control meetings. Since that time, we’ve seen a flurry of motions on behalf of Judge and the other defendants in an attempt to draw this case out as much as possible.
What is a motion for summary judgement? In the words of Judge Summerhays, “A court should grant a motion for summary judgment when the movant shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In other words, everyone knows X is true, so we don’t really need to go to trial about it, do we?”
Without taking apart the judgement piece by piece, Summerhays showed why Judge failed to prove any of his claims. As part of that explanation, he laid out why the precedent cases used by Judge’s attorney in their argument were either incorrectly applied or not relevant to the facts at hand. In the end, Summerhays decided, “Given that Mejia and Brevis have overcome both prongs of Judge’s qualified immunity claim, the Court DENIES his Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to qualified immunity.”
We are grateful to Judge Summerhays for his ruling, and look forward to continuing to prove our case.