Was D.C. Bar's Liquor License Denied Partly Based on Owner's Speech Criticizing Anti-Masking/Vax-Proof Requirement Speech?

Reason · collected 2026-09-08 · by Eugene Volokh
Read the original at Reason ↗

Summary

A First Amendment case is being considered by a D.C. Circuit Court after a bar owner was denied his liquor license renewal due to his criticism of COVID-19 pandemic policies and refusal to comply with them. The court concluded that the bar's noncompliance with masking and vaccination requirements, while motivated by First Amendment concerns, was not "inherently expressive" conduct protected by the amendment. This decision is based on a 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, which found that similar law school conduct was not inherently expressive. The court ruled against the bar owner's claim that his license renewal was denied in retaliation for his speech criticizing the pandemic policies.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-08, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
34
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
12%
4 of 34 hedged
Leaning
Leans strongly right
of the writing, not the subject
Publisher trust
89.8
red-flag proxy, not a credibility rating
Outlets on this story
1
Crime & Law
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-08 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

Eric Flannery, owner of Washington, D.C. bar and restaurant The Big Board, publicly criticized the city's COVID-19 masking and vaccination requirements on social media and in interviews. As a result, his business refused to comply with these policies when they were still in place. After the requirements were lifted, an Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 6C) formally opposed the renewal of The Big Board's liquor license. Flannery and his restaurant sued the commission, alleging that their opposition was retaliatory and a violation of Flannery's First Amendment right to free speech. A D.C. Circuit Court judge agreed that this was a plausible allegation, meaning it could potentially be true, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The court noted that if the commission had denied the license solely based on Flannery's refusal to comply with the requirements, it would have been constitutional, but since there were allegations of retaliation for his protected speech, the case needed to move forward.

Written for “Liquor License Controversy in DC” on 2026-09-08, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Score +0.85 Confidence high 1 quote(s) discarded as not found in the article
Leaning score +0.85 for article 7001 (high confidence, 1 verified quote) · logged 2026-09-08

Story

📰 Liquor License Controversy in DC
Crime & Law · 1 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.

Publisher

Reason · 62 article(s) · 1 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 1 correction(s)
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
33 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 [Nor do they] offer … facts that would suggest inevitable or likely exposure to the curriculum (or its harmful effects)….
2026-09-08 · mixed framing · "Jewish, Zionist" Teachers' and Parents' Lawsuit Over Allegedly Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Zionist School Curriculum Can Be Refiled, Ninth Circuit Rules
🔮 The court concluded that "The Big Board's refusal to comply with the orders was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," so not renewing his license based solely on such refusal would have been constitutional:
2026-09-08 · assertive framing · Was D.C. Bar's Liquor License Denied Partly Based on Owner's Speech Criticizing Anti-Masking/Vax-Proof Requirement Speech?
🔮 Lambert … falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had conflicts of interest with her clients and/or her firm, that she would sue the Plaintiffs if they were to be engaged in these relationships, and implicitly that she would take legal action against the relationships themselves if they were to hire Plaintiffs.
2026-09-08 · mixed framing · Forensic Election Fraud Analysts Allege Defendants Defamed Them as "Retaliation for Plaintiffs' Refusal to Report False Findings of Election Fraud"
🔮 The court concluded that, even "assuming arguendo that there's a fair chance that the press defendants have violated the federal and state trade secrets provisions," the First Amendment would preclude the TRO:
2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Judge's Opinion Denying TRO Against Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as to Publishing of Data Center Plans
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From the docket this morning; for more on the case, see here and here (the latter item notes the sealing, and expresses the now-realized hope that "the motion will be unsealed at some point soon"): Via email, Plaintiff has informed the Court that it will not be pursuing preliminary injunctive relief….
2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Brief Update on the Entergy / Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Matter
🔮 Perhaps most analogously to alienation of affections, if Alan breaches his contract with Betty, and Cathy encouraged him to breach it, she will in many situations be liable for intentional interference with contract.
2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Alienation of Affections as Complicity
🔮 In a phone call on March 2, Gelb told Netrebko to issue a statement specifically denouncing Putin, or she would be fired.
2026-09-05 · assertive framing · Opera Star Anna Netrebko Loses Follow-Up Defamation Case Against the N.Y. Metropolitan Opera
🔮 A malicious act "include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.
2026-09-05 · assertive framing · N.C. Court Has Jurisdiction over Alienation of Affection Claim Brought Against Ex-Arizona-Senator Kyrsten Sinema
🔮 If you have followed the factual allegations in the case, please post a comment and indicate how you would have voted if you were a juror, based on your knowledge (even if limited) of the factual allegations, and why you would have so voted.
2026-09-05 · mixed framing · How Would You Have Applied Massachusetts Law in the Lindsay Clancy Trial?
🔮 As part of this mea culpa, Ms. Hall assured the court that she had taken the remedial measure of verifying that the remaining citations in the brief were legitimate authority and pledged that, going forward (presumably in her representation of other clients), she would not rely on any AI tool "for legal research without confirming each authority" or file anything that includes citations she has not independently verified.
2026-09-04 · assertive framing · "Incredulity" That "Competent Law Firm Representing One of the Largest Financial Institution[s] in the World" Filed Brief with AI Hallucinations
More on this subject from Eugene Volokh
Judge's Opinion Denying TRO Against Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as to Publishing of Data Center Plans
2026-09-06 · Reason · 55% similar
Brief Update on the Entergy / Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Matter
2026-09-06 · Reason · 54% similar
Forensic Election Fraud Analysts Allege Defendants Defamed Them as "Retaliation for Plaintiffs' Refusal to Report False Findings of Election Fraud"
2026-09-08 · Reason · 53% similar
"Incredulity" That "Competent Law Firm Representing One of the Largest Financial Institution[s] in the World" Filed Brief with AI Hallucinations
2026-09-04 · Reason · 52% similar
All 33 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

District FAIR The Big Board The Big Board's the First Amendment

Subjects

The Big Board ORG · 6× The Big Board's ORG · 6× District GPE · 4× Flannery PERSON · 4× Bradley Garcia PERSON · 1× Cornelia Pillard PERSON · 1× D.C. Circuit ORG · 1× Eckenwiler PERSON · 1× Eric Flannery PERSON · 1× Michelle Childs PERSON · 1×

Narrative

But the court held that the Complaint had sufficiently alleged that ANC 6C's decision to file a "protest," here meaning "a formal opposition … to the renewal" of an alcohol license (an opposition to which the Alcohol Board must give "great weight"), was based not just on the Big Board's noncompliance with the requirements but also with "Flannery's social media posts and press interviews criticizing the District's policies—which everyone agrees are protected speech":
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-08
🔮 The court concluded that "The Big Board's refusal to comply with the orders was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," so not renewing his license based solely on such refusal would have been constitutional:
2026-09-08 · Reason
Was D.C. Bar's Liquor License Denied Partly Based on Owner's Speech Criticizing Anti-Masking/Vax-Proof Requirement Speech? · assertive framing

Claims (34 extracted, 4 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From Friday's decision in Flannery v. Eckenwiler by D.C. Circuit Judge Bradley Garcia, joined by Judges Cornelia Pillard and Michelle Childs; as usual, note that in these cases dealing with motions to dismiss, the court focuses on the facts as plausibly alleged by the plaintiff—there has been no factfinding on what the facts actually are: asserted
facts → join → plaintiff
Eric Flannery owns and operates The Big Board, a Washington, D.C. bar and restaurant. asserted
Flannery → own → Board
When the District imposed masking and proof-of-vaccination requirements due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Flannery publicly criticized those policies and The Big Board refused to comply with them. asserted
Board → impose → them
Months after the District lifted the requirements, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6C (ANC 6C) formally opposed renewal of The Big Board's liquor license. asserted
Commission → lift → license
Flannery and The Big Board sued, alleging that the members of the Commission violated the First Amendment by opposing the renewal in retaliation for Flannery's public criticism and his restaurant's noncompliance with the District's policies. asserted
members → sue → policies
The court concluded that "The Big Board's refusal to comply with the orders was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," so not renewing his license based solely on such refusal would have been constitutional: asserted
renewing → conclude → refusal
The Supreme Court has "rejected the view that conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea." asserted
person → reject → idea
Instead, we must ask whether, in context, the conduct is "inherently expressive." … asserted
conduct → ask → context
[When] observers would have "no way of knowing" whether conduct is communicative without additional "explanatory speech," that is strong evidence that the conduct is not "inherently expressive." asserted
conduct → have → speech
There, law schools denied military recruiters access to campuses in protest of the government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, forcing the recruiters to conduct interviews elsewhere. asserted
schools → deny → interviews
The law schools argued that their conduct was inherently expressive because they intended to convey opposition to the government's policy. asserted
they → argue → policy
The Court disagreed. asserted
Court → disagree → ?
An observer who saw military recruiters interviewing away from a law school would have "no way of knowing whether the law school [was] expressing its disapproval of the military, all the law school's interview rooms [were] full, or the military recruiters decided for reasons of their own that they would rather interview someplace else." asserted
they → see → own
Here, … [t]he complaint's allegations do not plausibly support that conclusion. asserted
allegations → support → conclusion
The complaint alleges nothing about how The Big Board's noncompliance would manifest itself to reasonable observers. asserted
noncompliance → allege → observers
It simply alleges that restaurants were required to enforce masking and check proof of vaccination, that The Big Board refused to do so, and that the District later suspended The Big Board's licenses for violating the orders. asserted
District → allege → orders
Those allegations do not support an inference that reasonable observers would understand The Big Board's conduct as communicative…. asserted
observers → support → conduct
There are myriad non-expressive reasons an establishment might choose not to enforce a masking requirement, ranging from indifference and lax oversight to a reluctance to initiate confrontations with paying customers. uncertain
establishment → be → customers
The complaint alleges no facts suggesting that a reasonable observer would, notwithstanding these alternative explanations, understand The Big Board's conduct to be "inherently expressive." asserted
conduct → allege → explanations
The average observer could not know whether The Big Board checked vaccination cards merely by seeing patrons inside. uncertain
Board → know → patrons
And even if they could, that observation alone would not reveal that The Big Board was declining to check vaccination cards as a deliberate protest, rather than simply overlooking or inconsistently enforcing the requirement. uncertain
Board → reveal → requirement
Again, the complaint alleges no observable practice from which objectively reasonable viewers would understand that The Big Board was communicating opposition to the District's policy or any other expressive message…. asserted
Board → allege → policy
But the court held that the Complaint had sufficiently alleged that ANC 6C's decision to file a "protest," here meaning "a formal opposition … to the renewal" of an alcohol license (an opposition to which the Alcohol Board must give "great weight"), was based not just on the Big Board's noncompliance with the requirements but also with "Flannery's social media posts and press interviews criticizing the District's policies—which everyone agrees are protected speech": asserted
everyone → hold → policies
The complaint alleges that when ANC 6C's Alcoholic Beverage Licensing Committee considered The Big Board's renewal application at its November 7, 2022, meeting, "Mr. Eckenwiler stated that The Big Board's license should be revoked because, 'I mean just some of the things he's said publicly, we should go ahead and protest the license.'" asserted
we → allege → license
Per the complaint, no other committee member disagreed with or challenged Eckenwiler's statement. asserted
member → disagree → statement
Two days later, the full ANC 6C voted to file the protest. asserted
ANC → vote → protest
Those allegations, and reasonable inferences drawn from them, link the decision to file the protest to Flannery's speech in emphatic fashion. asserted
allegations → draw → fashion
In effect, the allegation is that the Commission member taking the lead on this issue said, at a public meeting, "We should file a protest because of Flannery's protected speech," and the Commission did so just two days later. asserted
Commission → take → speech
A smoking gun is typically harder to find. asserted
gun → find → ?
The complaint's other allegations further support a reasonable inference that Flannery's protected public criticism was a necessary cause of the protest. asserted
criticism → support → protest
ANC 6C's protest cited three grounds for protesting The Big Board's license, but the Alcohol Board allegedly found no evidence substantiating any of those concerns, despite monitoring The Big Board on eight separate occasions. uncertain
Board → cite → occasions
Further, Eckenwiler's alleged conduct during the settlement and mediation process, construed in the plaintiffs' favor, reflected no genuine interest in pursuing the stated grounds for objecting to license renewal: He refused to engage meaningfully with Flannery or counsel, failed to provide evidence that supported the protest, and abruptly left a mandatory mediation session after speaking for less than forty-five seconds. asserted
that → allege → seconds
Those allegations suggest that the protest's stated grounds were pretextual—or, as the district court put it, "flimsy," "unsupported," and "quite troubling." asserted
court → suggest → it
Combined with Eckenwiler's public statement linking the protest to Flannery's speech, those allegations support a reasonable inference that protected speech was a but-for cause of ANC 6C's action…. asserted
speech → combine → action
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support
Terms · Privacy · beta v1.1.0
Articles to 8 Sep 2026