This article is the latest in a series of case studies of SPN award finalists. You can also read case studies of wins in Illinois, Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, and Ohio.
When public schools promote one political message and shut out others, they are no longer acting as neutral institutions. They are choosing winners and losers.
That was the issue in a Minnesota district where school officials allowed Black Lives Matter posters in schools while rejecting alternative messages such as “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter.”
SPN affiliate Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) took on the case, pushed through early setbacks, and won a major First Amendment ruling in federal court — helping bring the district back to political neutrality.
In the end, UMLC and its clients secured both a legal precedent and a practical result. The Eighth Circuit held that the district could not treat the posters as protected “government speech” while excluding opposing viewpoints. After that ruling, the district removed the posters and returned its schools to political neutrality.
UMLC’s work earned the organization recognition as a finalist for the 2025 SPN Bob Williams Award for Best State-Based Litigation.
When A School District Picks Favorites
The dispute began after Lakeville, Minnesota, schools displayed posters promoting diversity and inclusion. Two of the posters included the phrase “Black Lives Matter.” Parents objected when the district allowed those messages but refused alternatives. UMLC represented taxpayers, parents, and students who argued that the district was engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
The school district’s main defense was simple. It argued that the posters were its own speech. In its legal filings, UMLC challenged that claim directly, arguing that the district was not speaking for itself in any meaningful sense. It was favoring one political viewpoint and trying to shield that choice from First Amendment review.
That clear legal theory turned a local dispute into a broader constitutional test. Could a public school district give official backing to one side of a political debate and block the other side from responding?
UMLC Stayed In The Case
UMLC did not win this case without persistence. The organization first filed Cajune v. Independent School District No. 194 in 2021, but the case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. UMLC re-filed in September 2022 with additional plaintiffs who were better positioned to meet standing requirements under recent precedent.
The district court dismissed the re-filed case in August 2023, accepting the argument that the posters were government speech. UMLC appealed. On appeal, UMLC argued that the content and meaning of the posters came from private activists and that the district had merely put its stamp of approval on them.
The Eighth Circuit agreed and reversed the lower court decision, holding that Lakeville could not avoid First Amendment scrutiny by labeling favored political messages as its own speech. The court said the district had engaged in “impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”
After the ruling, Lakeville removed the posters from classrooms and hallways and returned school spaces to political neutrality. Because that was the outcome the plaintiffs had sought, the parties reached a settlement under which the district agreed to pay UMLC $30,000 for legal expenses.
“Our goal in this lawsuit was to make school school again, and after the Eighth Circuit win and the removal of the posters, that is exactly what happened,” UMLC president Doug Seaton said.
That combination makes this case especially strong. UMLC secured an important legal ruling, and that ruling produced a practical result.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Lakeville
The Eighth Circuit’s ruling reaches well beyond one Minnesota district. Because the case arose in the federal courts of the Eighth Circuit, the decision is binding in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arkansas.
That means this was not only a win for the plaintiffs in Lakeville, but also clarified the law for schools and communities across multiple states. Public officials in those states now have a stronger warning that they cannot elevate one viewpoint, suppress another, and hide behind the government speech doctrine.
For parents, students, and taxpayers, that is an important safeguard. For SPN affiliates, it is a clear example of how durable legal capacity works. A strong litigation shop can take a local conflict, press the right constitutional argument, and produce a result that changes the operating environment for years.
A Strong Example of Legal Capacity
The clearest takeaway from Cajune is not only that UMLC won. It is how UMLC won.
The organization identified a constitutional violation, stayed with the case after early setbacks, refined its legal approach, and ultimately prevailed — translating a legal win into institutional change. That is what affiliate legal capacity looks like when it is functioning well.
For SPN affiliates, this case is a reminder that strong legal work can do more than stop a bad policy in one place. It can give citizens a workable path to push back when public institutions start choosing which views may be expressed and which may not.
That is the value of building and sustaining legal capacity in the states. When the right case comes, affiliates are ready to do more than comment on the problem. They are ready to solve it.
