BOISE, Idaho — In a legal conclusion that caps off a highly publicized three-week trial, Big City Coffee won a significant victory against Boise State University administrators, securing a $3 million award for alleged violations of First Amendment rights. The controversy stemmed from the coffee shop’s display of a law enforcement support sticker, which ignited campus activism and public debate.
In August 2021, Sarah Fendley, the owner of Big City Coffee, initiated a $10 million lawsuit targeting Leslie Webb, the former vice president for student affairs, and Alicia Estey, chief financial and operating officer at Boise State University. This legal action came after her coffee shop, operating on the university’s campus, had to shut down in 2020 amidst growing pressures and student-led protests.
The jury, convening last Thursday, delivered a unanimous verdict favoring Fendley, including an additional $1 million against Webb personally. Emotional during the reading of the verdict, Fendley expressed her overwhelmed state through her lawyer, Mike Row, who highlighted his client’s gratitude and ongoing processing of the trial’s outcome.
Legal representatives for Webb and Estey voiced their disagreement and intentions to appeal the decision. In a statement, Keely Duke, the lawyer representing the BSU administrators, insisted that their actions were in deference to the rights of all parties involved.
The controversy traces back to the use of a “thin blue line” emblem at Big City Coffee’s downtown location, a symbol that became a central issue upon the opening of its BSU campus outlet. The emblem, seen as politically charged by some, led to student protests and social media campaigns urging a boycott of the coffee shop.
The trial revealed details of the challenging environment Fendley faced on campus. In her opening statement, she mentioned being blindsided by the backlash, indicating she was unaware of the growing tensions until it was too late. Defense arguments countered this claim, suggesting Fendley’s choice to close the shop was voluntary and not due to any direct retaliation by university officials.
During the legal proceedings, Estey testified, asserting that the university had not retaliated against Fendley, echoing the defense’s stance that the coffee shop’s closure was a decision made independently by its owner.
Row’s closing arguments drew attention to the broader implications of the case, emphasizing the importance of free speech and expression, particularly for small businesses facing institutional pressures. He criticized BSU for what he described as mistreatment of a small enterprise and urged for respect towards freedom of expression.
This case highlights ongoing national debates surrounding freedom of speech and the role of institutions in managing or mediating politically sensitive expressions. As appeals are anticipated, the legal and societal discussions ignited by this lawsuit are expected to continue, reflecting broader polarizations and the critical examination of university policies in politically charged environments.