Pride, Permits, and the Price of Arrogance: Franklin Faces Trial for Viewpoint Discrimination

A federal judge has just confirmed what many in Franklin have been warning about for months: the City’s approach to Franklin Pride events—and its willful indifference to First Amendment rights—has created not only legal peril, but a potential financial crisis for taxpayers.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, an Obama appointee widely regarded as one of the more liberal jurists on the bench, issued a ruling that should send shockwaves through City Hall. The court held that Joseph Cocchini, a Christian evangelist arrested at the 2023 festival, may proceed to trial on a claim that his speech was unconstitutionally suppressed. Crucially, the only motion the court resolved at this stage concerned arresting officer Kevin Spry’s request for qualified immunity. The City itself never moved to dismiss, never sought immunity, and never asked for judgment in its favor—meaning its potential liability remains completely intact.

That procedural fact has been lost in some public commentary. Suggesting that the City “won” because Spry is the lone defendant headed to trial is, at best, deeply misleading. The court simply hasn’t reached the City’s role yet—because the City didn’t put the question before the court. When discovery begins, every briefing memo, e-mail, and command chain directive that shaped police conduct at Franklin Pride will come under a microscope. If those documents show the City empowered private event staff to dictate who could stay or go in a public park, Franklin could face a multimillion-dollar verdict.

And although this stage of the lawsuit focused only on Officer Spry’s personal liability, Franklin’s taxpayers aren’t necessarily off the hook: if a jury ultimately finds that Spry violated Cocchini’s First Amendment rights, Tennessee law and the city’s risk-management policies allow—and in practice almost always require—the municipality to indemnify its employees for actions taken within the scope of their duties. 

In other words, even without a formal ruling against the City, Franklin could still be legally or contractually bound to pay any judgment or settlement on Spry’s behalf, meaning the financial fallout may land on the public ledger rather than the officer’s wallet.

 Earlier this year—months before Judge Crenshaw issued his opinion—Franklin quietly approved the 2025 Franklin Pride permit with virtually the same speech-restrictive language that sparked the 2023 lawsuit. The festival has already taken place under rules that bar “materials that conflict with the mission of Franklin Pride,” effectively giving organizers a veto over dissenting viewpoints on public property. To date, the City’s legal department has offered no public explanation for why Franklin Pride was allowed to reuse language for festival attendance policy that has now been confirmed to be constitutionally suspect.

 Judge Crenshaw’s opinion leaves no doubt about the stakes. Harlinsdale Farm is a “quintessential public forum,” he wrote, and the Constitution does not retreat simply because a private group rents the space. Police officers cannot outsource First-Amendment decisions to event organizers; nor can a city declare that public property is suddenly private, then eject speakers it dislikes. Because Officer Spry allegedly arrested Cocchini solely at the request of Pride staff, and because the law forbidding such viewpoint discrimination was “clearly established,” the court denied Spry qualified immunity. The officer will now face a jury—and the City could follow if evidence shows its policies were the moving force behind the arrest.

 Mayor Ken Moore and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen were fully aware of this lawsuit when they issued the 2025 permit. They were equally aware that the court’s first opinion identifies serious constitutional flaws in the City’s approach. Yet they pressed ahead without insisting the policy at the center of the litigation be removed before approving the permit for park use. If Franklin loses at trial, taxpayers—not festival organizers—will foot the bill for damages, attorneys’ fees, and possibly a court-ordered overhaul of permitting rules.

The bottom line is simple: Tuesday’s ruling is only the first chapter. It addresses the officer’s request for immunity and nothing more. Any claim that “the City is off the hook” is premature and deceptive, because the City never even asked to be dismissed. With discovery looming, Franklin’s risk exposure is growing by the day.

 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!