Protecting Government’s Interest in Unbiased Advisory Boards: Pickering Balancing in Taylor Biro v. City of Tallahassee

Introduction

Taylor Biro v. City of Tallahassee (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025) addresses the First Amendment rights of an appointed member of a municipal advisory board whose mission was to review police policies with “an unbiased panel of citizens.” Plaintiff‐appellant Taylor Biro challenges her removal from the Citizens Police Review Board after she prominently displayed a cup bearing the message “Abolish Police” at public meetings and publicly criticized a police‐training contractor. The core issue is whether, under the landmark Pickering balancing test, the City’s interest in maintaining an effective, impartial advisory board outweighed Biro’s free‐speech rights.

Background and Key Issues

Parties: Taylor Biro, volunteer appointee to the Citizens Police Review Board; City of Tallahassee, appointing authority and defendant.
Board’s Purpose: To foster transparency, enhance communication, and build trust between citizens and the Tallahassee Police Department through policy review by an unbiased panel.
Contested Conduct: Biro’s display of an “Abolish Police” sticker at all Board meetings and her vocal objections—both in public sessions and via press leaks—to the hiring of a police‐training consultant.
Procedural Posture: District court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Biro appeals the dismissal of her First Amendment retaliation claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. Applying the Pickering test, the court held:

Public Concern: Biro spoke on matters of public concern (police policy).
Pickering Balance: The City’s interest in an effective, trusted, unbiased advisory board outweighed Biro’s speech interests. Her “Abolish Police” sticker undermined the board’s mandated impartiality, disrupted working relationships, and deterred departmental cooperation.
Role Context: As a public‐facing appointee with policymaking functions, Biro’s speech context tipped the balance in the City’s favor.

The court also found Biro’s alternative theory—retaliation for objections to the consultant’s hiring—fell under the same analysis. Precedent in McKinley v. Kaplan foreclosed Biro’s arguments that advisory‐board appointees enjoy broader First Amendment protection than other public employees.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968): Established balancing test between public employee speech and governmental interest in efficient service.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983): Clarified public vs. personal speech and disruption standard (“reasonable possibility of adverse harm”).
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987): Time, place, manner factor; private speech less disruptive.
Watts v. Florida International University, 495 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2007): Motion‐to‐dismiss application of Pickering.
Moss v. City of Pembroke Pines, 782 F.3d 613 (11th Cir. 2015): No requirement of actual disruption, only reasonable possibility.
Morris v. Crow, 117 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 1997): Time, place, manner disadvantage where disrespect at public forum undermines morale.
Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1997): Context factor for public‐facing roles.
McKinley v. Kaplan, 262 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2001): Advisory‐board appointees are public‐facing policymakers; government may insist on loyalty and neutrality.

Legal Reasoning

1. Pickering Balancing—Second Prong: Although Biro’s sticker and public criticisms addressed matters of public concern, the City demonstrated a sufficient interest in preserving the Board’s impartiality, protecting working relationships, and maintaining trust with the Police Department. The court applied these factors:

Impediment to Government Duties: Display of an explicit anti‐police slogan “reasonably threaten[ed]” the Board’s capacity to secure honest cooperation from police leadership and maintain public confidence.
Time, Place, Manner: The sticker was “prominently displayed” at meetings open to the public, causing disruption comparable to the pollster’s disrespectful public remarks in Morris.
Context of Speech: As a public‐facing, appointed policy advisor, Biro functioned as a liaison; her public advocacy against the police conflicted with her role’s requirement of perceived neutrality.

2. McKinley Foreclosure: Just like the Film Board appointee in McKinley, Biro held a policymaking advisory role, engaged in public contact, and was appointed by the City Commission. McKinley requires that speech by such appointees be weighed against the government’s interest in staffing its advisory bodies with trusted, neutral representatives.

Impact on Future Cases

Taylor Biro affirms that municipal advisory‐board appointees enjoy only the same First Amendment protections as other public employees under Pickering. Governments may remove volunteers or appointees whose public expressions of bias threaten the perceived neutrality essential to advisory boards. Future claimants will face a steep burden when they serve in roles involving public contact and policymaking duties. Practically, this decision:

Reinforces that advisory‐board neutrality is a legitimate governmental interest under Pickering.
Clarifies that displays of slogans or symbols at board meetings can constitute actionable impediments to efficient public service.
Limits scope for arguments that volunteer or unpaid advisory members warrant broader free‐speech protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pickering Test: Balances (1) employee’s free‐speech interest on public matters against (2) employer’s interest in efficient government operation.
Public‐Facing Employee: One who interacts with the public or represents the government, making their personal views potentially attributable to the employer.
Reasonable Possibility of Harm: Government need not wait for actual disruption—only a likelihood that speech could impair operations or relationships.
Policymaking/Advisory Role: Even without final authority, such roles influence policy and require trust, loyalty, and impartiality.

Conclusion

Taylor Biro v. City of Tallahassee establishes that municipal advisory‐board appointees speaking publicly in a manner that undermines their board’s mandate may be removed without violating the First Amendment. By applying Pickering balancing and reaffirming McKinley’s public‐facing‐appointee rule, the Eleventh Circuit underscores the government’s right to preserve impartiality and effective administration in citizen oversight bodies.