A federal lawsuit claims that a local elected official was censured and barred from school property without proper notice or an opportunity to respond, raising concerns about transparency and the protection of constitutional rights in public institutions. The complaint was filed by Janet Spight-White on April 2, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Board of Education of the School District of the City of Highland Park and the Highland Park Public School Academy System Board of Directors.
According to court documents, Janet Spight-White is a duly elected Trustee on the Highland Park School Board. She alleges that after speaking as a concerned citizen at a July 7, 2025 city council meeting regarding neighborhood safety issues unrelated to her role as trustee, she was censured by the Highland Park School Board on October 29, 2025. The board accused her of misrepresenting her personal views as those of the board, representing the board negatively toward a community partner, failing to adhere to codes of professional conduct, disrupting meetings, not observing meeting authority, and making threatening statements to other members.
Spight-White asserts that she “never stated that she was a Trustee” during her remarks at the city council meeting nor did she reference or represent herself as speaking for the board. She further alleges that she “was not given any of the details of the allegations,” “was not informed that a meeting would be held to discuss possible censure,” and “not given the opportunity to be heard and/or address the allegations in any form.” The complaint states that there appeared to be no public meeting regarding her censure and suggests that decisions were made behind closed doors.
Following this action, Spight-White’s monthly stipend was revoked, she was prohibited from traveling for board purposes, and declared ineligible for officer positions within the board. Shortly after censuring Spight-White, procedural rules for censuring members were adopted by the board; however, according to Spight-White’s filing, these procedures were not applied retroactively or followed in her case.
The lawsuit also addresses actions taken by the Academy Board. As part of her duties as trustee, Spight-White visited Barber Preparatory Academy at their request but later expressed concerns about special education provisions after observing classrooms. Without advance notice or inclusion on their agenda, on March 24, 2026, “the Academy Board passed a motion to not allow Ms. Spight-White in the building while students are in the building.” The complaint argues that this decision was made without informing Spight-White or providing an opportunity for her response.
Spight-White contends these actions violated both her Due Process rights under state and federal constitutions as well as her Freedom of Speech protections. She claims that “the gathering to agree to censure Ms. Spight-White violated the Open Meetings Act” required under Michigan law because it allegedly occurred outside public view. According to court filings: “The Highland Park School Board made an important policy decision without holding an open meeting in accordance with Michigan’s Open Meeting Act.”
The complaint seeks several forms of relief: overturning both disciplinary actions as unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful; compensatory damages for loss of stipend and reputation—stating “plaintiff is seeking a judgment at $500,000 or an amount determined by jury”—and attorney fees related to alleged violations; injunctive relief against enforcement of these measures; and a declaratory judgment clarifying Spight-White’s right to access school property as an elected official.
The case is being handled by attorney Ari Lehman from Lehman Law PLLC. The case number is 2:26-cv-11118-MFL-DRG.
Source: 226cv11118_Janet_Spright_v_Board_of_Education_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
