Students and staff from Gillingham Charter School received information about a regional college fair hosted by the Pottsville Area School District. After Gillingham registered to attend, district officials said the invitation had been sent by mistake and told the group not to come. The students and staff went anyway. At the fair, they read a statement explaining why they believed they had a right to attend, tried to record the encounter, and eventually were allowed limited access to the event.

Afterward, members of the group publicly criticized the district’s treatment of them. According to the complaint, the district’s lawyer then demanded that Gillingham remove online statements criticizing district personnel.

The plaintiffs argued that the district discriminated against their viewpoint, interfered with their speech and assembly, and retaliated against them for protected expression. The district argued that the college fair was a nonpublic, invitation-only forum and that it could control access and conduct there.

The court refused to dismiss the First Amendment speech and assembly claims. At this early stage, it accepted the complaint’s allegations that the district’s restrictions were motivated by hostility toward Gillingham rather than a neutral access policy. It also allowed the retaliation claim to continue. The court was not deciding that the plaintiffs had already proved a First Amendment violation; it held that they had alleged enough facts to move forward.

The decision shows that even when the government controls a limited or nonpublic forum, it generally may not discriminate against speech simply because it dislikes the speaker’s viewpoint. It also shows that attempts to punish later public criticism can raise a separate retaliation issue.