# Reply Brief — LaFlamme v. Essex Junction School District > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386019_1701%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2000 - **Citation:** 531 U.S. 927 ## Text (y oLED, | No. 00-0173 co 4 In The ea | Supreme Court of the _ptate a STANLEY LAFLAMME, Petitioner, ESSEX JUNCTION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. 5 On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Vermont REPLY BRIEF Epwin L. Hosson, Counsel of Record 289 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2000, Fax (802) 651-7396 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 ep TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Sr Sls anniek oka wa ke asus deeesilws i me AE POI oes ci Schade Gos c kis dks wenn ii Petitioner’s Reply to Brief in Opposition........... 1 I. Alleged Supreme Court Rule 15.2 Misstatements oe TS BOiry Piet tena Uae Oa eT ae 1 II. The Claim that the Petition Does Not Present an Issue Addressed by the Vermont Supreme Court , the last issue consuming pages 18-25 of its brief. The Petitioner also filed a Motion to Reargue on the grounds that the Vermont Supreme Court had denied the Petitioner the right to trial by jury in treating the adverse verdict on the prior restraint issue as dispositive of the motive for the censure on the due process claim. The Petitioner has always presented this case as a retaliation case, and specifically argued at trial the “stigma plus > Petitioner’s Brief before the Vermont Supreme Court, pp. 18-19. | analysis” of Little v. City of Miami,© which is a case directly on point to the facts here. Since the Petitioner fully presented the issue to the Vermont Supreme Court, and the Vermont Supreme Court explicitly ruled, the Petitioner has complied with both of the alternate standards of Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83, 86, 117 S. Ct. 1028, 1029, 137 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1997). III. Petitioner Has Asserted that He Has Been Deprived of a Federally Protected Property Right or Liberty Interest The Defendant also argues that no federal rights are implicated, because the Petitioner has no protected lib- erty or property interest in his office, relying on Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7 (1944), rehearing denied, 321 U.S. 804 (1944). The Snowden Court ruled that misapplication of a facially neutral state statute to a candidate for public office, with nothing more, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court took pains to note that no other constitutional violation or discrimination was alleged. Snowden involved no implication of First Amendment or other activity protected by the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. The rights of Free Speech and Free Assembly apply to the states through the Four- teenth Amendment. See, e.g. Fisk v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 387 (1927); DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937). Where First Amendment rights are implicated as to state officers, state officials are subject to an action under the 6 Little v. City of North Miami, 805 F.2d 962, 967-968 (11th Cir. 1986); Transcript, September 4, 1997, argument of Edwin Hobson in chambers. Fourteenth Amendment by candidates or even voluntary state employees. Hadnot v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358, 364, 89 S. Ct. 1101, 1104, 22 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1969); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (patronage employees not protected against dismissal are protected when dismissed for exer- cise of First Amendment rights); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1992) cert. denied, 508 U.S. 908 (volunteer protected against dismissal for exercise of First Amendment rights). Punishing an elected school board member for speak- ing out publicly on school board matters is repugnant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. “[S]peech con- cerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75, 85 S. Ct. 209, 216, 13 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1964). ¢ CONCLUSION This case presents the question of whether an elected member of a governmental body can be subject to official discipline without due process of law because he spoke out on public issues. As the Courts of Appeal and the Vermont Supreme Court have reached different answers to this important question of due process, this Court should grant this Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Epwin L. Hosson Attorney at Law 289 College Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2000 Attorney for Petitioner --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386019_1701%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.