JACKSON (LN) — A federal judge on Friday granted summary judgment for the Armed Forces Retirement Home in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a resident who wanted to wear pro-Trump apparel and display political signs in the facility’s common areas.
U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden of the Southern District of Mississippi ruled that the Gulfport facility’s common areas constitute either a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum, meaning the government’s restrictions on speech need only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
Plaintiff Johnny Fuselier, a Vietnam War veteran, sued John S. RisCassi, the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, alleging the facility violated his constitutional rights by enforcing a Resident Guide provision that bans apparel with “racial, sexual, political, or ethnic slogans” in public spaces.
Fuselier, described in his memorandum as a “passionate supporter of President [Donald] Trump,” sought to wear shirts with slogans such as “Trump 2024 Save America Again!” and “Let’s Go Brandon.” He also affixed signs to his orthopedic walker reading “2024 – Make Us Great Again” and “Let’s Go To Brandon MS.”
According to the complaint, a Resident Officer ordered Fuselier to remove the signs in 2023, warning that refusal could lead to an administrative hearing and possible eviction. Fuselier complied but later demanded permission to display political slogans, which officials denied.
Ozerden rejected Fuselier’s argument that the facility’s common areas were designated public forums open for political debate. The judge noted that the facility’s purpose is to provide residences and health services to veterans, not to facilitate political expression.
“The Government’s policy, as expressed in the Resident Guide, is explicitly to restrict certain types of speech in common areas, including political speech,” Ozerden wrote. “The Government’s consistent enforcement of a policy limiting political expression in common areas is inconsistent with an intent to open those same areas for unlimited veteran expression.”
The court found the ban reasonable given the facility’s unique environment, which includes active-duty military personnel and aims to maintain a harmonious atmosphere for aging veterans. Ozerden noted that allowing political speech could undermine the military’s tradition of political neutrality.
The judge also dismissed Fuselier’s facial challenges to the policy. Because the court found the policy reasonable as applied—citing weekly bulletins that limited the ban to apparel supporting or opposing “CURRENT” political candidates—it concluded the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
In a separate order, Ozerden directed Fuselier’s counsel to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for citing a fictitious case in his briefing. The judge noted the plaintiff’s brief combined elements of two real cases to create a nonexistent Fifth Circuit precedent.
Fuselier’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.