By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters), – The U.S. Supreme Court Justices were skeptical Tuesday of a Texas community colleges’ violation of the freedom of speech rights of a former member. On Tuesday, they cissed him for “reprehensible” behavior during his turbulent tenure.

In Houston Community College’s appeal to a lower court’s decision to revive David Wilson’s lawsuit, the justices heard almost 90 minutes worth of oral arguments. Wilson claimed that Houston Community College’s censure, a form of discipline, violated the First Amendment’s protection against government abridgement.

Justices asked questions to show that they are not likely to limit public elected bodies’ ability to address a member’s remarks or conduct with censure. Wilson was elected publicly to the board of trustees at the school.

In American history, democracy has used censure throughout its history. Since the beginning of two centuries, Congress members have experienced censure.

Michael Kimberly Wilson’s lawyer said to the justices, that censures, like those handed by the college, have a chilling impact on speech of elected members. This prompted some justices to be skeptical.

John Roberts, Conservative Chief Justice, said that Wilson’s support would create a chilling effect.

Roberts explained to Kimberly that a majority of boards wants to express their opinion on any offensive or reprehensible behavior – yet, they will chill their speech if they win today.

Stephen Breyer, Liberal Justice of the Supreme Court expressed concerns about how it might “oversee” other parts of government.

Wilson served as a director on the college board, which was the biggest public institution in Texas and had more than 55,000 students.

Some justices felt uncomfortable about Wilson receiving additional punishments beyond censure. This included denying travel reimbursements.

Wilson has been described by local media outlets as an anti-LGBT activist for many years. According to The Houston Chronicle, Wilson had previously filed a petition for Houston to change its city charter. This would have prohibited men who “perceive or express themselves to be women” from using women’s toilets.

Wilson stated that he ran to be a member of the board in order expose college management. Wilson criticized the decisions of the board through the media, robocalls and on the internet. He hired a private investigator and claimed that others board members were engaging in illegal or unethical conduct. Additionally, he sued the board for the actions he disagreed with twice.

In 2018, the board decided to suspend him, finding his behavior “not just inappropriate but also reprehensible.” His privileges as trustee for certain funds related to college travel were also suspended by the discipline.

Wilson sought monetary damages, including mental anguish, to stop enforcement of the censure.

New Orleans’ 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 reaffirmed a decision by a federal judge to reject the case. This allowed the case to go forward. According to the 5th Circuit, a “reprimand of an elected official regarding speech that addresses a matter concerning public concern” is an actionable First Amendment claim.