Background
Jason Sanchez submitted a comment criticizing the Eddy County sheriff’s office to the county’s website, which promised that comments received by a certain deadline would be read aloud at the next Board of County Commissioners meeting. County Manager Mike Gallagher chose not to read Sanchez’s comment, admitting he had decided to stop reading electronic comments but had not informed the public. Sanchez sued Gallagher and the Board under Section nineteen eighty-three, alleging a First Amendment violation. The district court denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding a genuine issue of material fact that Gallagher’s refusal was based on viewpoint discrimination.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that in appeals of qualified immunity denials, it must defer to the district court’s finding of genuine issues of material facts. The court reviewed the case under a three-step test for forum analysis, determining the Board meeting was a limited public forum where viewpoint discrimination is prohibited. The court found that the right was clearly established by prior Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions, including Mesa versus White and Rosenberger versus Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia. Regarding the county board, the court dismissed the appeal on Monell liability because qualified immunity does not apply to municipal entities, and pendent appellate jurisdiction was unavailable since the individual official’s liability was affirmed.
But on appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, pounding facts—other than those the district court found—is usually off limits.
Sanchez v. Gallagher, et al., 25-2072 (10th Cir. May 19, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision allows the case to proceed to a jury trial to determine if the county manager violated the plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment rights. It reinforces that government officials cannot selectively silence speech based on its viewpoint in limited public forums.