Franklin BOMA Faces New Constitutional Challenge as Free Speech Violations Mount
Franklin’s city leaders are once again under fire for trampling First Amendment rights—this time for zoning rules that restrict political speech. Are they going to act? Constitutional violations are piling up.
By TruthWire News
The Franklin Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) is once again facing serious scrutiny for apparent disregard of the First Amendment rights of its residents. In a formal letter sent April 22, 2025, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) warned the City of Franklin that its zoning ordinance governing temporary signs and flags is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The letter demands that the city amend its code or risk potential litigation. Yet this is only the latest in a pattern of actions by the BOMA that show an alarming indifference to constitutional protections—especially when those protections involve speech that challenges prevailing narratives.
FIRE, a nationally recognized nonpartisan legal watchdog, outlines how Franklin's ordinance restricts temporary signs based on their content, the number allowed, and how long they may be displayed. For example, the city code differentiates between campaign signs and other temporary messages like "This is Trump Country," allowing one and restricting the other. This kind of subject-matter-based regulation is textbook unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court's decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015). Regulations that discriminate based on the message being conveyed must pass the highest level of judicial scrutiny—and Franklin’s ordinance doesn’t come close.
Even if the city were to argue that its policy is content-neutral, the sheer limitations it imposes—only two temporary signs and three flags per lot, for only three months per year—have already been struck down by federal courts in similar cases. FIRE argues these restrictions are not narrowly tailored and do not provide alternative means of communication, particularly for residents who may rely on signage to express their views due to economic or mobility constraints.
In short, Franklin’s current zoning laws do not simply regulate signs; they regulate speech.
And it’s not the first time.
This latest constitutional warning comes on the heels of another First Amendment controversy: the BOMA's decision to issue a park permit to Franklin Pride for its June event in a public city park, despite the organization’s stated policy barring attendees from wearing or distributing materials that conflict with their mission. According to the group's own website, attendees "may not bring in materials of any kind for distribution or sale or display" and "attire/items with slogans, graphics, etc. must not conflict with the mission of Franklin Pride TN."
While Franklin Pride is entitled to hold its event and express its views, it is not entitled to suppress the speech of others in a public forum—especially not with the city’s explicit permission and potential police enforcement. The use of a public park, maintained by taxpayers and governed by First Amendment protections, cannot be handed over to a private group to act as temporary speech police.
The Supreme Court has made this clear in multiple rulings, including Boos v. Barry (1988) and Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983): the government cannot allow one group to monopolize a public space to the exclusion of dissenting views.
Despite these clear constitutional boundaries, the City of Franklin continues to act as if it is immune to them.
When TruthWire News contacted the city with specific questions about the constitutionality of Franklin Pride's exclusionary policy, the city attorney responded by citing ongoing litigation and refused to comment. But our questions weren't about litigation—they were about policy. Specifically, why the city would issue a permit that allows one group to enforce a speech ban in a public space, and whether they believe that constitutes state-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination.
The silence from elected officials has been deafening. Instead of addressing these constitutional concerns head-on, they are hiding behind legal counsel and vague procedural justifications, while residents watch their rights slowly erode.
Franklin's leadership seems willing to ignore constitutional violations when it suits them, whether by regulating front-yard speech or deputizing private event hosts to suppress public expression. The pattern is unmistakable. When FIRE outlines multiple Supreme Court decisions that Franklin is violating, and when local residents are removed from a public park for wearing a Christian t-shirt—and still, the city issues another permit with the same policy—we are no longer dealing with oversight. We are dealing with willful negligence.
The question now is whether Franklin residents will stand by as city officials treat the Constitution as a nuisance instead of the foundational law it is. With FIRE threatening litigation and more lawsuits on the horizon, the cost of BOMA's indifference may soon come out of the taxpayers' pockets—if not their freedoms first.
The May 6th deadline to meet FIRE’s demands has passed. With no changes in the city ordinance. Is another lawsuit for the suppression of 1st Amendment rights to free expression in BOMA’s immediate future? If so, they don’t seem too concerned.
Franklin residents would do well to remember all of this the next time these same officials ask for their vote—often while claiming to be Conservative Republicans who are defenders of the Constitution.
Their record says otherwise.
If you support what I do, please consider donating a gift in order to sustain free, independent, and TRULY CONSERVATIVE media that is focused on Middle Tennessee and BEYOND!
CLICK THE BUTTON OR SCAN THE QR CODE BELOW!!
Comments ()