Amacher v. City of Tullahoma – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, holding that a First Amendment retaliation claim based on a quo warranto petition requires proof that the petition lacked probable cause.
Standard: no-probable-cause requirement for quo warranto retaliation claims
Vote: Unanimous affirmation of the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Practical effect: The ruling clarifies that elected officials and citizens challenging an officeholder's eligibility via quo warranto are protected from retaliation claims unless the challenger lacked probable cause for the action.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by a former city alderman. The court held that a quo warranto petition challenging an officeholder's residency eligibility requires proof of no probable cause to support a retaliation claim.

Background

Jenna Amacher served as an alderman in Tullahoma, Tennessee, after moving outside city limits and purchasing an undeveloped lot with plans to build a home. Residents and the district attorney filed a quo warranto petition challenging her residency eligibility. The state court denied the petition, finding Amacher had done enough to show intent to return. Amacher then sued the city, its officials, and the residents for retaliating against her speech under the First Amendment and for malicious prosecution.

The court’s reasoning

Chief Judge Sutton wrote that a quo warranto petition is best analogized to a common law malicious prosecution claim. Under this analogy, a plaintiff must prove the absence of probable cause to succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim. The court found that the defendants had a reasonable belief the petition had a chance of succeeding because Amacher’s residency was genuinely in doubt. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of a discovery extension, noting Amacher was not diligent in pursuing depositions.

Because probable cause supported the quo warranto petition, it does not provide a cognizable basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim in this setting.

Amacher v. City of Tullahoma, No. 25-5917 (6th Cir. June 25, 2026)

What it means going forward

The ruling clarifies that elected officials and citizens challenging an officeholder’s eligibility via quo warranto are protected from retaliation claims unless the challenger lacked probable cause for the action.