Constitutional Victory in COVID-19 Lawsuit

Sumrell Sugg, P.A. is proud to announce a major constitutional victory secured by attorney Frederick (“Derrick”) Bailey III. This case, rooted in the heated constitutional disputes of the COVID-19 era, addressed a question courts across the country faced: how to balance individual constitutional rights with lawful government action during a public health emergency.

The lawsuit arose from a series of public health board meetings during 2021, when local officials were considering and enforcing indoor mask requirements. The plaintiff attended multiple public hearings related to the mask mandate and was removed from meetings after refusing to follow certain meeting rules, including mask compliance requirements and speaker time limits. He later filed federal civil rights claims alleging First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment excessive force, along with several state law claims.

At one hearing, the plaintiff wore a bandana as a face covering but allowed it to repeatedly fall below his mouth. After several minutes of noncompliance, the presiding chair directed deputies to remove him from the meeting. At another hearing, the plaintiff was allowed to speak but stated he would not comply with the three-minute time limit imposed on all speakers. When he continued speaking after his time expired and ignored requests to leave the podium, deputies physically escorted him from the room.

Derrick’s defense focused on the constitutional framework governing public meetings. Courts consistently recognize public meetings as “limited public forums,” meaning officials may enforce reasonable, content-neutral rules so long as they are applied equally. The court found no evidence that the plaintiff was treated differently based on his viewpoint. Instead, the evidence showed enforcement was tied to conduct, not speech.

The court also closely examined the excessive force claims. The evidence showed deputies used minimal force after he resisted lawful instructions. No weapons were used, and there was no evidence of injury. The court ruled the actions were objectively reasonable under Fourth Amendment standards and granted qualified immunity, which protects officials who act reasonably under existing law.

The decision further reinforced long-standing protections for public officials performing their duties in good faith. Without factual evidence of malice or corruption, courts presume officials act lawfully. The plaintiff did not present evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption.

COVID-era constitutional cases remain important benchmarks as they help define how the government can respond during emergencies while still respecting civil liberties. Courts have consistently recognized that public officials often must act despite scientific uncertainty and fast-changing conditions, and the law allows reasonable flexibility when decisions are made in good faith.

This victory reflects Derrick’s commitment to constitutional advocacy grounded in facts, evidence, and precedent. By securing summary judgment for the defendants, he helped reinforce the principle that constitutional rights are protected through law, structure, and equal application.

Sumrell Sugg, P.A. is proud to support our local public servants who work tirelessly in service to their communities. If you value constitutional balance, lawful governance, and fact-driven advocacy, we invite you to follow our page, share this story, and join the conversation.

Sumrell Sugg, P.A. is a regional legal firm that provides clients with first-rate services in a cost-effective manner. Whether clients are individuals, corporations, or local governments and municipalities, our firm delivers on an undeviating promise of service. For more information, visit us at www.nclawyers.com.