First Amendment retalaition & due process claims against defendants in their individual capacities; Absolute prosecutorial immunity; Absolute judicial immunity; Qualified immunity; Substantive & procedural due process; Claims against defendants in their official capacities; Sovereign immunity; Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC)

The court held that plaintiff-Cooperrider stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim related to the suspension of his business’s liquor license and that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to defendants-Beshear, Perry, and Duke on this claim. But it found that those defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on his due process claims, that other defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-prosecutorial and quasi-judicial immunity, and that sovereign immunity barred his claims against all defendants in their official capacities. Cooperrider sued Kentucky Governor Beshear and other state officials, alleging that they violated his First Amendment and due-process rights by revoking his liquor license after he disapproved of Beshear’s Covid-19 policies in social media posts. The district court dismissed all claims. On appeal, the court first considered whether the claims against defendants-DABC officials (Newton, Woods, and Taylor) in their individual capacities were properly dismissed based on absolute immunity. It concluded that Newton, the DABC’s general counsel, was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity where he engaged in “a quasi-prosecutorial role in initiating and prosecuting the enforcement action” against Cooperrider’s business and that Woods and Taylor were entitled to absolute judicial immunity when they issued the final order revoking the business’s alcohol license. As to the claims against Beshear, the Secretary of the Kentucky Public Protection Cabinet (Perry), and the General Counsel for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services (Duke) in their individual capacities, the court noted that, “at the pleading stage, Cooperrider need only ‘allege[] facts “that would allow a jury to find that [the adverse action] was motivated at least in part by” [Cooperrider’s] speech.’” It found “that the complaint plausibly alleges that Beshear, Perry, and Duke violated Cooperrider’s clearly established right to criticize the state government without retaliation.” But his substantive due process claims against them failed where he did not allege that they “engaged in constitutionally arbitrary or conscience-shocking conduct.” The procedural due process claim also failed where Cooperrider received adequate process before the deprivation. The court affirmed as to the dismissal of Newton, Woods, and Taylor based on absolute immunity; as to the grant of qualified immunity to Beshear, Perry, and Duke on the procedural and substantive due process claims; and as to the dismissal of the claims against all defendants in their official capacities. It reversed as to the dismissal of Beshear, Perry, and Duke based on qualified immunity as to the First Amendment retaliation claim, and remanded.