Novak v. City of Parma

Novak v. City of Parma
Novak v. City of Parma
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case name	Anthony Novak v. City of Parma; Kevin Riley, Individually and in his Official Capacity as an Employee of the City of Parma, Ohio; Thomas Connor, Individually and as an Employee of the City of Parma, Ohio
Decided	April 29, 2022
Case history
Prior action(s)	Novak acquitted of disrupting public services; Motion to dismiss denied on most claims; Sixth Circuit affirms denial; Northern District finds qualified immunity;
Appealed to	Supreme Court of the United States
Court membership
Judges sitting	Jeffrey Sutton, Amul Thapar, Chad Readler
Case opinions
	The defendants have qualified immunity regarding their arrest of Anthony Novak for creating a Facebook page parodying the police department's.
Decision by	Thapar

Novak v. City of Parma, No. 21-3290, is a 2022 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting qualified immunity to the city of Parma, Ohio, and its officials for prosecuting Anthony Novak over a Facebook page that parodied the Parma Police Department's page. The case drew widespread attention when The Onion, a satirical newspaper, filed a humorous but sincere amicus curiae brief supporting Novak's petition to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari; that petition was denied in February 2023.

The parody page, which strongly resembled the real page, had led to Novak's arrest in March 2016 and a subsequent trial for disrupting public services, which resulted in Novak's acquittal.^[1] Novak then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and prior restraint. An initial decision of the Sixth Circuit in July 2019 allowed most of the suit to proceed, leading to a February 2021 ruling that Novak's arresting officers both had probable cause and were protected by qualified immunity, which the Sixth Circuit upheld in April 2022.

In August 2022, Novak petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, asking them to review the case. The Onion's amicus brief, submitted at the suggestion of Novak's counsel and drafted in consultation with the publication's writers, emphasized the importance of parody in political discourse, while also making absurd claims such as that The Onion "enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion"^[2] and calling the federal judiciary "Latin dorks".^[3] The Babylon Bee, a conservative satirical publication, also supported Novak's petition in their own amicus brief, and commented favorably on The Onion's brief. The subsequent denial of certiorari let stand the Sixth Circuit's decision.

^ Cite error: The named reference cleveland-acquits was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Amicus Br. of The Onion in Supp. of Pet'r (archived copy), Novak v. City of Parma, No. 22-293, at 1. [Hereinafter Onion Br.]
^ Rachel Treisman, The man who wrote The Onion's Supreme Court brief takes parody very seriously, NPR (October 4, 2022; archived copy) (quoting Onion Br., supra, at 4–5, 15).

[cleveland-acquits-1] Cite error: The named reference cleveland-acquits was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ob-1-2] Amicus Br. of The Onion in Supp. of Pet'r (archived copy), Novak v. City of Parma, No. 22-293, at 1. [Hereinafter Onion Br.]

[treisman-dorks-3] Rachel Treisman, The man who wrote The Onion's Supreme Court brief takes parody very seriously, NPR (October 4, 2022; archived copy) (quoting Onion Br., supra, at 4–5, 15).

[1]

[2]

[3]