Blackburn v. City of Marshall

What This Case Is About

Jimmy Blackburn owned a towing and wrecker service in Harrison County, Texas. After he complained to the Marshall police chief about the bidding process for city towing contracts and spoke publicly about wrecker policies, Blackburn was removed from the city’s towing rotation list and had his permission to use the police radio frequency revoked. He sued the City of Marshall, its police chief, and the county sheriff under § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation and due process violations.

The Facts

The City of Marshall provided local towing operators with business through two channels: (1) a competitive contract for removing abandoned vehicles from public property, and (2) a rotating on-call system for removing vehicles involved in accidents. A third source of business—direct customer requests—was independent of city involvement.

The city solicited bids for the abandoned-vehicle removal contract through two newspaper notices as required by Texas law. Blackburn did not subscribe to the newspaper, missed the notices, and lost the opportunity to bid. Upset, he telephoned Police Chief Chuck Williams on January 23, 1992, to complain about the process.

Following the phone call—and allegedly because of it—Williams removed Blackburn from the on-call rotation list for accident towing. Williams also revoked Blackburn’s permission to use the police radio frequency, which wrecker operators used to respond to calls. Both actions effectively cut off Blackburn’s city-related towing business.

Blackburn also alleged that Harrison County Sheriff Bill Oldham participated in the retaliation by contacting wrecker operators and discouraging them from doing business with Blackburn.

Blackburn sued all three defendants under § 1983, alleging that the removal from the rotation and radio frequency constituted retaliation for his First Amendment-protected complaints, and that the removal deprived him of property without due process.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

On the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court reversed the dismissal. Blackburn’s complaints about the bidding process addressed a matter of public concern—the fairness and transparency of how the city awarded public contracts. The court found that Blackburn adequately alleged a causal connection between his complaints and the adverse actions taken against him (removal from the towing rotation and loss of radio access). This was sufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.

On the due process claim, the court affirmed the dismissal. Blackburn had no protected property interest in remaining on the city’s towing rotation list. The rotation system was discretionary—the city could add or remove operators without any formal process. Without a protected property interest, there was no due process violation.

On the claims against Sheriff Oldham, the court analyzed whether Blackburn sufficiently alleged the sheriff’s personal involvement in the retaliatory scheme, as required for individual-capacity claims under § 1983.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Complaints about government processes are protected speech. Speaking up about unfair bidding practices, contract awards, or other government operations is speech on a matter of public concern and is protected by the First Amendment. Retaliation for such speech is actionable under § 1983.

Government benefits can be the basis for retaliation. You don’t have to be a government employee to bring a First Amendment retaliation claim. If the government retaliates against you by revoking a benefit—like a towing contract, a license, or access to a government program—because of your protected speech, that’s actionable.

Property interests must be established. Not every government benefit creates a protected property interest for due process purposes. Discretionary benefits (like a spot on a towing rotation) generally do not. Only benefits to which you have a legitimate claim of entitlement—based on a statute, regulation, or contract—trigger due process protections.

Temporal proximity supports causation. The close timing between Blackburn’s complaint and his removal from the rotation helped establish the causal connection required for a retaliation claim. If adverse action follows closely after protected speech, that timing is circumstantial evidence of retaliation.

Key Takeaway

When the government retaliates against you for speaking out about unfair practices—by cutting off business, revoking access, or taking other adverse actions—the First Amendment provides a remedy through § 1983. However, the loss of a discretionary government benefit does not automatically create a due process claim; you must show a legitimate entitlement to the benefit to trigger due process protections.