“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Paul Matey, who was nominated by Donald Trump to the Third Circuit court of appeals, wrote a 2-1 opinion that affirmed a lower court ruling that granted summary judgment to local police who wanted to wear what some considered a hateful and harmful symbol on their uniforms. Judge Patti Shwartz dissented and maintained that a jury should have been allowed to determine whether the police’s public wearing of the symbol caused harm. The January 2025 decision was in Fraternal Order of Police Pennsylvania Lodge v Springfield.
What happened in this case?
A number of police officers in Springfield, Pennsylvania started wearing a patch or otherwise displaying the so-called “Thin Blue Line American Flag”, which is an American flag with only black and white stripes and one thin blue stripe. There was disagreement about the meaning and message of the symbol, and many in the town believed that it sent a “hateful” message associated with “white supremacy” and would cause the “erosion of public trust in law enforcement.” Springfield passed an ordinance that prohibited officers from wearing the symbol while “on duty or representing the Township.”
A number of officers sued Springfield, and a district court granted summary judgment in their favor on First Amendment grounds. Springfield appealed to the Third Circuit.
How did Judge Matey and the Third Circuit majority rule and why is it harmful?
Judge Matey wrote a 2-1 decision that affirmed the ruling against Springfield on First Amendment grounds for restricting the police officers’ expression. Judge Patti Shwartz strongly dissented, maintaining that the case should have been decided by a jury.
Specifically, Judge Shwartz explained that a “reasonable jury” could conclude that Springfield’s interest in “preventing the erosion of public trust in law enforcement” through limited restrictions on display of a “symbol associated by some with white supremacy outweighs” the officers’ interest in displaying the symbol in some circumstances. She noted that the restrictions on the symbol were limited to when the officers were on duty and expressly excluded off duty time. Depending on the facts shown to the jury, she went on, a jury could find that Springfield’s actions were “reasonable responses” to a concern that officers’ public display of the symbol would “erode public trust in the police” and “undermine public safety.”
Judge Matey’s ruling thus threatens to harm the township of Springfield and make it difficult for other communities to take action that employees can claim restricts their expression, even when important to promoting public trust and safety. The decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.