DV Journal

Although a federal court says it can’t ban a pro-cop flag from flying, the Springfield Township Commission isn’t going down without a fight.

After a contentious, three-hour meeting, commissioners voted 5-2 last Thursday to keep fighting to stop township police from displaying the “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled 2-1 against Montgomery County’s Springfield Township in a dispute with its police officers over displaying the pro-police symbol.

Rather than allow the display, which some progressives say is offensive, Springfield’s lawyer will ask for the full or “en banc” Third Circuit Court for a hearing. They want another ruling on whether the police union can use thin blue line flags on township property or in a way that would allow people to think it represented the township’s views.

When their Police Benevolent Association adopted the thin blue line emblem in 2023, the Springfield board responded by passing a resolution banning its display. Three officers, along with the Pennsylvania FOP and the township Police Benevolent Association, filed a lawsuit. The courts have ruled in their favor.

Wally Zimolong, the lawyer representing the PBA, said he has not seen Springfield’s filing yet. Before last week’s meeting, several activists showed their support for the police with a thin blue line flag demonstration.

“Unfortunately, the flag came to represent two things, solidarity for police and racial intimidation and white supremacy,” said Township solicitor James Garrity. “In fact, the flag is identical to the well-known Black Lives Matter flag, except that the one horizontal line on that that’s black is blue on this particular flag.”

The cops’ attorneys moved for summary judgment, and an injunction was granted “without any trial,” said Garrity. The board then appealed to the Third Circuit which reached a 2-1 split decision in favor of the police.

“We do believe we have a duty to defend our position based on the merits,” said board President James Lee. “Our defense of the resolution and this lawsuit has cost us $64,000 in legal fees. The federal judge also awarded the plaintiffs $212,000, plus $2,200 in costs.” If the ruling is reversed, those plaintiffs’ legal fees would be dismissed, he said.

It’s all about the Benjamins for Commissioner Edward Morris. At last week’s meeting, he said he fully supports the police, but “my opinion (supporting the appeal) is purely financial. If we don’t appeal this $200,000-plus of your money, my money, taxpayer money goes to pay an attorney for the state Fraternal Order of Police…They sued us.”

Commissioner Susanna Ratsavong said, “I agree with the merits of the case. We need to proceed. Legally speaking, I think the case was decided poorly. But also, I very much echo Commissioner Morris’s financial prerogative.”

Commissioner Peter Wilson said he sees both sides, but “my overall concern is if any portion of our community is at ill ease with this symbol, it shouldn’t be part of our process, it shouldn’t be incorporated within our police ranks. So, I am in full support of the motion for the rehearing en banc.”

Lee said that while he wants to appeal to the full Third Circuit, he would not be in favor of going to the Supreme Court if that appeal fails.

“In 2014, the symbol was very clearly a rebuttal of Black Lives Matter…If you are a person of color and go into the police station and see that on the wall, see that on a mug–We are people in power. We need to be a little more sensitive to it,” said Lee.

Commissioner Jonathan Cobb, who voted no, along with Commissioner Elizabeth McNamara, said the controversy has cost the township more than money. Anytime someone looks up Springfield Township online they see the stories about the issue.

“We’re putting our officers in danger, that somehow they’re racist. I would strongly urge us to end this appeal process. We’ve gone to the casino. We’ve lost…I would suggest we accept the loss and move on.” There is “definitely a cost to our prestigious community.”

Commissioner Brendan May said the courts have not yet addressed the township’s argument.

“I think we deserve a trial,” he said.

Numerous residents on both sides of the issue spoke.

Resident Jim Daly asked the board to end the litigation.

“I think you should cut bait and work to unite us as a community. It’s chilling if we’re going down this slope. We’re talking about a PBA symbol.”

Morris said, “The First Amendment does not give carte blanche to say anything, If here were a swastika—” Then he said he did not mean the thin blue line flag was a swastika.

Resident Angelina Banks said the issue “goes to the very heart of what we stand for in this nation: our freedoms. It is time to close the door on the ongoing legal battle between Springfield Township and the PBA. Despite the mounting losses in court, the continued pursuit of these costly and misguided appeals is reckless in a case that’s been definitely settled. It speaks to a deeper concern, the concern about the rights of every citizen and the role of government in our lives.”

She noted township employees have First Amendment rights and their “freedom of speech is not subject to the opinion of local politicians and bureaucrats.”

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled 2-1 against Montgomery County’s Springfield Township in a dispute with its police officers over displaying the pro-cop “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag.

Previously, the Springfield Township Board of Commissioners had voted 5-2 to approve a resolution banning the “thin blue line on an American flag” (TBLAF) that the township’s Police Benevolent Association (PBA) has adopted as a symbol. Critics call the image, widely used at public events to honor fallen police officers, a “symbol of white supremacy.”

For police officers, however, it’s a sign of solidarity as they perform a dangerous job that’s necessary for society to function.

A federal judge ruled in favor of the PBA. The township filed an appeal to the Third Circuit.

“The township’s attack on the Thin Blue Flag was blatantly unconstitutional,” said Wally Zimolong, who represents the PBA in the case. “The District Court recognized this within days of the filing of the complaint when it issued a preliminary injunction. It recognized this again when the court entered a permanent injunction against the township at summary judgment.

“Now, the Third Circuit has affirmed what we have known all along. Unfortunately, the township doubled and tripled down, sacrificing, at the altar of ‘woke,’ hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending the ban. That money could have been spent to improve the community rather than chasing ‘woke’ fantasies and attacking our courageous police officers.”

In the non-precedential opinion, Circuit Judge Paul Matey wrote, “A tempest in a teapot brewed when the Township of Springfield passed a policy forbidding township employees from displaying a variation of the American flag supporting law enforcement officers. Because that policy violated the First Amendment, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.”

Matey noted, “The First Amendment protects the free speech of government employees when they speak ‘as citizens’ rather than ‘pursuant to their official duties.’” He added, “The Township has not met its burden. It concedes that it ‘cannot identify any specific incidents of disruptions’ caused by Plaintiffs’ use of the Flag.”

But his colleague, Judge Patty Shwartz wrote, “To some, the TBLAF represents police solidarity. To others, it communicates a white supremacist message, which could erode public trust in the police.

“When public confidence in law enforcement declines, public safety suffers. As a result, viewing the facts and drawing inferences in the Defendants’ favor, a reasonable jury could conclude that the township’s interest—in preventing the erosion of public trust in law enforcement by restricting the display of a symbol associated by some with white supremacy—outweighs the rights of the Fraternal Order of Police and police officers, to display the TBLAF in certain circumstances.

“As a result, I conclude that the District Court erred in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Therefore, I respectfully dissent,” Shwartz wrote.

Township Solicitor James Garrity said the township may file a motion for the full Third Circuit Court to decide the case since there was a split decision by a three-judge panel.

On the township website, the Board of Commissioners wrote commissioners are disappointed by the decision but “respect the judicial process.”

“We feel the decision of the court has limited the First Amendment rights of municipalities and public organizations at-large and has taken a measure of control of municipal property out of the hands of the people and their duly elected officials. This will have a substantial impact beyond our own community that may not be fully appreciated at this time.

“It is important to note that the decision was not unanimous, and that the dissenting opinion strongly believes that the Township should have been given a chance to demonstrate both its concern and its right to prohibit the display of this controversial symbol on township property or in any manner suggesting the township’s support.  It seems clear that the First Amendment Rights of the township deserve nothing less,” the BOC wrote.

The commissioners called a special meeting to decide whether to appeal for 5:30 Feb. 6 at the township building, 1510 Paper Mill Road.