Robert Preble and John Casper v. Itasca County Board of Commissioners
Robert Preble and John Casper v. Itasca County Board of Commissioners; John Johnson; Casey Venema; Cory Smith; Terry Snyder; Larry Hopkins; Brett Skyles; Jacob Fauchild; Joe Dasovich; and Austin Rohling
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03006
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Preble and Casper v. Itasca County Board of Commissioners, Judge Provinzino denied the request by self-represented plaintiffs Robert Preble and John Casper for a court order forcing Itasca County to reinstate an online public-comment portal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show they were likely to win their claim that the County shut down the portal to retaliate against them for filing a lawsuit.
Residents of Itasca County, Minnesota who wish to submit written public comments to their County Board of Commissioners, particularly those who cannot attend in-person Tuesday afternoon meetings; self-represented litigants bringing First Amendment retaliation claims based primarily on circumstantial timing evidence.
What happened
In Preble and Casper v. Itasca County Board of Commissioners, Robert Preble and John Casper — acting without lawyers — sued Itasca County, Minnesota officials and employees, claiming that Defendants violated their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to read aloud comments they had submitted through the County's online public-comment portal at Board of Commissioners meetings. Thirteen days after the lawsuit was filed, the County stopped accepting written comments through the portal entirely, requiring residents who want to speak at Board meetings to attend in person on Tuesday afternoons. Plaintiffs then asked the court for a preliminary injunction — an emergency court order — to force the County to bring the portal back, arguing the timing of the shutdown showed the County was punishing them for suing.
To win a preliminary injunction, a party must show four things: a strong likelihood of winning their case, a risk of serious harm that cannot be undone if relief is denied, that the harm to them outweighs the harm to the other side, and that the public interest favors the order. The most important factor, especially in cases involving freedom of speech, is whether the party is likely to win on the merits. Here, Plaintiffs argued that the closeness in time between their lawsuit and the portal shutdown proved retaliation. The court acknowledged that filing a lawsuit is protected activity under the First Amendment, but explained that timing alone is generally not enough to prove that retaliation was the motive — and Plaintiffs offered no other evidence of retaliatory intent.
Judge Provinzino denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. Because Plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on their retaliation claim, all the other factors also weighed against them: they could not demonstrate a concrete threat to their First Amendment rights, there was no showing of irreparable harm, the balance of harms favored the County, and the public interest did not require restoring the portal when residents still had an avenue to address the Board in person. The case itself continues — this ruling only addresses the emergency request for a court order, not the underlying lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Preble and Casper v. Itasca County Board of Commissioners et al., No. 25-cv-3006 (LMP/LIB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- December 2, 2025
Background Plaintiffs Robert Preble and John Casper, proceeding pro se (without attorneys), filed suit against the Itasca County Board of Commissioners and named individual county officials and employees. Their complaint alleged that Defendants violated their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to read aloud comments Plaintiffs had submitted through an online portal the County had established specifically to allow written public comments to be read at Board of Commissioners meetings.
Thirteen days after the lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2025, the Board shut down the online portal entirely. Going forward, residents who want to provide public input must attend in-person Board meetings held at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesdays.
On September 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction — an emergency form of court relief that can require a party to take or stop taking specific action while a lawsuit proceeds. Plaintiffs argued that the Board's decision to discontinue the portal was retaliation against them for filing this lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment, and asked the court to order reinstatement of the portal.
Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction Under the Supreme Court's framework in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief; (3) that the balance of equities favors the moving party; and (4) that the injunction would be in the public interest. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of entitlement.
In First Amendment cases, likelihood of success on the merits is typically the decisive factor.
Factor 1 — Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs' motion rested on a First Amendment retaliation claim. To prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) engagement in protected activity; (2) that defendants took an action sufficiently serious to chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing that activity; and (3) that the adverse action was taken in retaliation for the protected activity. Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848–49 (8th Cir. 2010).
The court accepted that filing a lawsuit is protected First Amendment activity. Spencer v. Jackson County, 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2013). However, the court found that temporal proximity (closeness in time between the lawsuit's filing and the portal's shutdown) is generally insufficient on its own to establish retaliatory motive, citing Smith v. Rozeboom, 108 F.4th 1064 (8th Cir. 2024) and Graham v. Barnette, 5 F.4th 872 (8th Cir. 2021). Because Plaintiffs offered only timing evidence and no other evidence of retaliatory intent, the court concluded they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the retaliation claim.
Factors 2–4 — Irreparable Harm, Balance of Equities, and Public Interest Because Plaintiffs could not show that their First Amendment rights were actually being infringed, the court found they also failed to show irreparable harm. The court cited Ness v. City of Bloomington, 437 F. Supp. 3d 714, 723 (D. Minn. 2020) for the principle that a plaintiff cannot establish irreparable harm where it is unclear that their First Amendment interests are actually threatened.
On the balance of equities, the court found the failure on the merits meant Defendants would be harmed by being subjected to an injunction for conduct not found illegal or unconstitutional.
On the public interest, the court acknowledged that open citizen-government communication is important, but noted that Plaintiffs themselves conceded residents retain access to the Board through in-person meetings. The court therefore found the public interest did not require restoring the online portal.
Footnote / Procedural Note The court declined to address Defendants' separate argument that the injunctive relief sought was outside the scope of the claims in the complaint, since the motion was denied on the merits. The court also issued a caution to defense counsel, noting that Defendants' briefs had included cursory, undeveloped arguments, and reminding them that the court is not obligated to flesh out undeveloped arguments.
Disposition Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 27) was DENIED. The underlying lawsuit remains pending.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.