This consolidated appeal arises from a series of lawsuits filed by Glenn Whiting and his attorney, Van Irion, against the City of Athens, Tennessee, and various city officials. The conflict began in 2022 when Whiting protested a city fireworks show that was restricted to employees and their families during the pandemic. After filming children at the event and confronting officials, Whiting was asked to stop and was eventually removed. He subsequently filed multiple lawsuits alleging defamation, First Amendment retaliation, and other torts. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants in the initial cases and dismissed subsequent filings for failure to state a claim. Whiting also filed motions to recuse the judges, which were denied. The district court then awarded sanctions and attorneys' fees to the defendants under federal and state statutes. Whiting and Irion appealed the sanctions orders, arguing the claims were meritorious and that the sanctions were improper.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the sanctions orders for abuse of discretion, noting that while the standard is deferential, a court abuses its discretion if it sanctions a party based on an erroneous view of the law. The court affirmed the denial of recusal motions, citing its prior decision in 'Whiting I' which addressed identical motions. Regarding sanctions, the court analyzed the claims under three statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113. Under § 1927, the court found the attorney's conduct fell below the obligations owed to the court because the claims were frivolous. The defamation claim was barred by Tennessee's litigation and legislative privileges, and the attorney admitted the claims were meritless while still prosecuting them. The First Amendment retaliation claims were also frivolous. The court explained that the government retaliates in violation of the First Amendment only if the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, suffered adverse action capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness, and there was a causal connection. Whiting failed to show adverse action; confrontations at a fireworks show and public statements by officials were not threats or actions that would deter a reasonable person. Furthermore, the court noted that Whiting's own conduct of filing over a dozen lawsuits demonstrated he was not deterred. The court emphasized that the First Amendment protects the right to speak out against officials, but it also protects officials' right to respond to such speech. Additionally, federal legislative immunity barred the § 1983 claims against the mayor and council members. The court concluded that the litigation was not an isolated attempt to redress grievances but a campaign of lawfare intended to drain the city's resources and harass officials. The sanctions were also affirmed under § 1988 and Tennessee state law, as the defendants were prevailing parties who successfully defended against claims that were frivolous as a matter of law.
The decision affirms the district court's sanctions orders, requiring Whiting and his attorney to pay attorneys' fees and costs to the defendants. It establishes that filing a pattern of lawsuits based on claims barred by absolute immunity or privilege, particularly when intended to harass public officials, constitutes sanctionable conduct under § 1927 and § 1988. The ruling clarifies that public officials are not liable for responding to criticism in public forums and that a plaintiff's continued litigation despite adverse rulings negates claims of First Amendment retaliation. The case is remanded to the district court to enforce the sanctions orders.