|
Augusta, ME — When Nicholas Blanchard stands to speak at Augusta Board of Education meetings, he never knows which words will get him censored. Will criticizing a board member by first name cross the line? What about pushing back against progressive gender ideology and referencing the “alphabet cult?” Will petitioning to fire a school administrator whose public advocacy he opposes cause the board to silence him?
Over the past year, school board Chair Martha Witham has repeatedly interrupted Blanchard’s public comments, threatened him with police removal, and cut short his speaking time—all for expressing views the board finds objectionable.
Now, with the help of the Institute for Free Speech, Blanchard is fighting back.
Attorneys from the Institute, along with local counsel David Gordon and Stephen C. Smith, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on behalf of Blanchard. The suit challenges the Augusta Board of Education’s unconstitutional censorship of public comments through vague policies that ban speech deemed “abusive,” “vulgar,” “defamatory,” “disparaging,” “offensive,” “rude,” “gossipy,” or even just “negative.”
The board’s “Policy BEDH” prohibits speakers from making statements about school employees or board members that officials subjectively deem “abusive” or “personal.” But the board’s enforcement goes further. Board Chair Witham has expanded these restrictions to silence virtually any criticism she dislikes—from policy disagreements to petitions for personnel action.
Between January and November 2025, Witham interrupted Blanchard seven times. She censored him, for example, for calling board members who supported controversial transgender policies “soft beta males,” for discussing a formal petition to fire a school administrator, for criticizing board members’ attendance records, and for claiming that the board was placing ideology over academic excellence.
Meanwhile, speakers supporting the board’s positions were permitted to criticize Blanchard without interruption—and, in one instance, a board member even applauded such remarks.
In June, after Blanchard protested the board’s selective enforcement and tried to finish his comments, Witham ordered a police officer to remove him from the meeting room.
The lawsuit argues that Policy BEDH and related practices violate the First Amendment through viewpoint discrimination, unreasonable speech restrictions, unconstitutional vagueness, and overbreadth. The suit contends that, once the board opened its meetings for public comment on school matters, it cannot silence speakers simply because their rhetoric is forceful or their views are unpopular.
“School boards cannot censor public comments just because citizens express controversial opinions using passionate language,” said Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia, the lead litigator on the case. “The board’s broad, malleable, and inconsistent rationales for punishing Mr. Blanchard—from claiming his remarks are ‘disparaging’ to ‘rude’ to simply ‘negative’—reveal the arbitrary nature of this censorship. This isn’t about maintaining order; it’s about silencing criticism and dissent.”
“I don't expect the whole school board to agree with me, but I do expect them to let me finish speaking,” explained Nicholas Blanchard. “Every citizen deserves a fair opportunity to address their elected officials. When other speakers can praise the board for five minutes while I get cut off after thirty seconds for expressing the opposite view, that’s viewpoint discrimination—and a violation of my First Amendment rights.”
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the board’s unconstitutional speech restrictions, prevent viewpoint-based discrimination, establish declaratory relief that Blanchard’s constitutional rights were violated, and award nominal damages and attorneys’ fees in acknowledgment of that violation.
To read the complaint in Blanchard v. Augusta Board of Education, click here. To visit our case page, click here.
| 
