A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed against the City of Aransas Pass will move forward—but only on a single First Amendment claim challenging the city’s Rules of Decorum. The ruling came down on July 7, 2025, following months of litigation over whether the city and its officials unlawfully retaliated against a local business owner and civic participant who repeatedly clashed with officials during public meetings.

The Hawk’s Eye previously reported on the filing of the lawsuit and the surrounding controversy, which began in 2022 when local resident Jason Followell began raising concerns at city council meetings about transparency, spending, and abuse of power. What followed was a series of escalations between Followell and city officials, including cease-and-desist letters, a trespass warning, and his removal from public meetings. The recent court order addresses each of those incidents in turn and clarifies which claims are still alive as the case continues.

Clash with City Officials Began in 2022

According to court records, the conflict began when Followell took a strong interest in attending and speaking at Aransas Pass City Council meetings. In 2022, he received three separate cease-and-desist letters from or on behalf of city officials, warning him to stop making allegedly defamatory statements during public comment. The letters threatened legal action if he continued. Despite those warnings, he kept attending meetings and continued to criticize what he described as misconduct by city leaders.

In September 2022, the city escalated its response by issuing a criminal trespass warning that barred Followell from entering multiple city properties indefinitely. The warning cited vague concerns about public safety, alleging that he posed a “significant public safety threat” to city officials, staff, and the public. However, the city stated it would allow him to conduct essential business remotely and participate in council meetings through YouTube, video conferencing, or written communication.

Even after the trespass warning expired, Followell continued showing up in person. He attended a December 2023 council meeting, where he again addressed officials and accused them of “unlawful expenditures.” During that meeting, he used profanity and called a member of the audience “a fucking moron,” prompting police to escort him out. The same thing happened at a January 2024 meeting when he again spoke critically and was removed. In both cases, the city claimed he had violated its adopted Rules of Decorum, which prohibit profanity, personal affronts, intimidation, and disruptive behavior.

Meanwhile, between March and June of 2022, the Aransas Pass Fire Department conducted several inspections at Followell’s business, including one in which both the fire chief and police chief entered the property. Followell alleged in his lawsuit that the inspections were retaliatory.

Lawsuit Narrowed After Withdrawals and Dismissals

The lawsuit originally asserted a wide array of constitutional and state law claims, including alleged violations of the First Amendment (retaliation and censorship), Fourth Amendment (unlawful entry), Equal Protection Clause, and defamation laws. However, not all of those claims survived.

During a March 2025 hearing, Followell voluntarily withdrew his defamation claims and abandoned his malicious prosecution theory. Additionally, he did not respond to legal arguments seeking dismissal of his retaliation and equal protection claims—so the court treated them as abandoned and dismissed them. The judge cited Fifth Circuit case law holding that claims not defended in response to a motion are considered waived.

That left four claims for the court to analyze in the July order: (1) the Fourth Amendment claim involving the fire inspections; (2) the First Amendment claim related to the cease-and-desist letters; (3) the First Amendment claim challenging the trespass warning; and (4) the First Amendment claim targeting the city’s Rules of Decorum.

The court dismissed the first three of those claims because they were brought solely against city officials in their official capacities, which under federal law is treated as a suit against the city itself. To succeed, such claims must allege that the challenged conduct was caused by an official city policy or custom. The court found that Followell had not made such allegations, and as a result, those claims could not proceed. The ruling clarified that individual misconduct, even if proven, is not enough to establish municipal liability under Section 1983 without a broader policy or practice.

Court Refuses to Dismiss Rules of Decorum Claim

While most of the lawsuit was dismissed, the court allowed one claim to proceed: the challenge to the city’s enforcement of its Rules of Decorum. This policy, adopted by the city council, governs behavior during meetings and bans speech that includes profanity, defamation, personal attacks, or threats. The city had argued that its enforcement of the rules was lawful and that Followell’s speech was not protected because it amounted to “fighting words.”

But the court found multiple flaws in the city’s position. First, the city failed to point to any specific evidence showing why Followell was removed from the meetings or which rule he actually violated. Though video clips showed Followell speaking and being escorted out, they did not explain the official reason for his removal. The court also found the city had not clearly identified what language, if any, it believed constituted unprotected fighting words—nor did it offer legal analysis as to why the words would fall into that category.

Crucially, the court raised concerns about the constitutional status of the city council meetings themselves. If the meetings constitute a “limited public forum,” the city may impose reasonable and viewpoint-neutral rules. But if the meetings are a “designated public forum”—a space intentionally opened by the city for broad public discourse—then content-based restrictions, such as a ban on profanity, must meet the demanding test of strict scrutiny.

City attorneys had acknowledged during a hearing that Aransas Pass places no limits on who can speak during public comment or what topics can be addressed. That admission, the court suggested, supports the argument that the meetings are in fact a designated public forum. If so, the city must show that any content-based restriction, such as banning profanity, is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The court held that the city failed to meet that burden.

Because there are unresolved factual and legal questions about the constitutionality of the Rules of Decorum, the court denied the city’s motion for summary judgment. That claim will now proceed.

City Remains as Sole Defendant

As of now, the only claim still active in the lawsuit is the First Amendment challenge to the Rules of Decorum. All other claims have either been withdrawn, abandoned, or dismissed. Likewise, all individual officials have been dismissed from the case, leaving only the City of Aransas Pass as the remaining party.

The court stated it would issue a separate housekeeping order to determine next steps in the litigation. The case now centers squarely on whether city officials overstepped constitutional boundaries by removing a speaker for using harsh language during public comment—a question that could set precedent for how small-town governments handle criticism at public meetings.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..

Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.  

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---