A day after a federal judge penalized a Florida wildlife administrator over her “false testimony” in a free speech lawsuit over critical comments about Charlie Kirk, her attorneys argued that she’s entitled to qualified immunity.
It’s a legal doctrine, often used to shield law enforcement officers, that protects public officials from liability “when performing acts necessary in their job,” according to the National Association of Attorneys General.
The official in question is Melissa Tucker, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission supervisor. She followed higher-up orders to terminate a biologist for posting critical comments of Kirk after his assassination.
But on May 12, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ordered her and FWC’s outside counsel to pay legal fees after doubling down on “false” testimony over the amount of complaints the agency received on these comments.
The biologist, Brittney Brown, filed a lawsuit shortly after, saying her Instagram repost about the conservative commentator was protected speech under the First Amendment.
Tucker’s seeking protection from civil damages so long as the court finds she didn’t violate Brown’s constitutional rights. Her attorney is arguing Tucker simply followed orders and wasn’t involved in the decision to fire Brown.
“No reasonable jury could find that Tucker personally participated in, or causally contributed to, the termination decision at issue,” says the filing by attorney Miriam Coles of the Henry Buchanan law firm. (As Walker notes: “To be clear, this Court is awarding fees against counsel with the law firm of Lawson Huck Gonzalez,” which had been representing FWC, and not Coles.)
Qualified immunity is “extraordinarily difficult” to be granted, said Gary Edinger, a First Amendment attorney representing Brown. But getting it won’t protect Tucker from paying attorney fees ordered by Walker, he added.
In Walker’s order, he criticized FWC’s outside counsel and Tucker, saying they doubled down on false testimony instead of correcting the record. This false testimony from Tucker alleged “hundreds” of complaints when evidence only shows about 50.
“There is a label for what Ms. Tucker did – making false statements. And there is a label for what defense counsel has done – vexatious litigation,” Walker wrote May 12.
Walker, an Obama-appointed federal judge who sits in Tallahassee, said earlier in the case that he agreed Brown’s repost on social media was protected speech under the First Amendment.
Brown is seeking reinstatement to her job, saying that finding a new job is tough since FWC is the regulatory body in her specialized field of bird conservation.
This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@usatodayco.com. On X: @stephanymatat.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Florida official seeks immunity in Charlie Kirk case
Reporting by Stephany Matat, USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida / Tallahassee Democrat
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
