A federal judge has ruled that it’s unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania community to prohibit the display of the “Thin Blue Line” or “Blue Lives Matter” flag that symbolizes solidarity with members of law enforcement.
The lawsuit stemmed from a Jan. 11 resolution adopted by Springfield Township’s board of commissioners, who voted 5–2 to ban the display of the flag on all township property. The ban also covered “visible depiction of the symbol on the clothing or skin” of the township’s employees during workdays or “while representing the township in any way,” meaning that police officers who have a Thin Blue Line-themed pin or tattoo wouldn’t be allowed to show it, not only when on duty but also whenever they’re wearing a uniform.
The reasoning behind the ban, as explained in an October 2022 letter from the township’s managers, was that many residents have allegedly “[expressed] deep discontent and distrust” over the use of the pro-police symbol by the township’s police department and the police union.
The flag has been “at the center of the controversy between minority communities and law enforcement officials across the country,” the managers of the Philadelphia-area township wrote, citing the “usurpation and display” of the flag by white nationalists.
In response, The Fraternal Order of Police Pennsylvania State Lodge, the Springfield Township Police Benevolent Association, and three officers filed the lawsuit against the township and its board of commissioners, arguing that the resolution was unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments.
The Ruling
In an opinion handed down on Nov. 13, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston sided with the police officers, saying the township failed to prove that the display of the Thin Blue Line flag had caused any actual disruption.
“The Township seems to concede that it has no evidence of workplace disruption caused by the display of the Flag,” wrote Judge Marston, who was appointed to the federal judgeship by former President Donald Trump. “Neither has it shown that the Flag has caused a ’real' disruption to relations between the police and Township residents.”
While some residents did file complaints over the police union’s use of the flag, this still didn’t amount to any real disruption in the township’s services, the judge wrote.
“The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it,” Judge Marston noted in the opinion, acknowledging that the flag “carries racist undertones to certain members of the community.”
“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist. But as this Court previously told the Township, the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered ’offensive.'”
The judge further noted that the township managers, by repeatedly referring to the flag and those who display the flag as “racist,” had negatively affected the morale of police officers. She said such behavior “borders on unprofessional.”
“It appears that the morale of the police department, the same department that the Township previously acknowledged was ‘well-respected,’ has taken a significant toll from the repeated assertions that the police officers—and not merely the Flag—are racist,” Judge Marston wrote.
The Nov. 13 ruling was applauded by Wally Zimolong, an attorney representing the police officers in the suit.
“It was a resounding win for the First Amendment and free speech,” Mr. Zimolong said in a statement. “It showed once again that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination based upon a message it disagrees with or finds offensive.”
