More than a year after the initial appeal, the multimillion-dollar Boise State University-Big City Coffee case is working its way through the state Supreme Court.

There is no hearing scheduled in the First Amendment dispute, so it’s unclear when the court will settle the 5-year-old case.

More than $5.2 million of taxpayer money is on the line — a $3.6 million jury verdict and $1.6 million in legal fees, awarded to Sarah Jo Fendley. The former owner of Big City closed a coffee shop at the Boise State library in October 2020, saying she was pushed off campus because of her vocal support of law enforcement.

Also on the line is Boise State’s political image. The high-profile Big City case has been a flashpoint in a larger debate over Boise State’s campus ideology — even though the university’s key figures in the dispute have since left Idaho.

In the past few weeks, attorneys for Fendley and two departed Boise State administrators filed their opening briefs with the Supreme Court. The documents restate some familiar arguments. Fendley’s attorneys accuse Boise State leaders of caving in to a small group of students who wanted Big City off campus. Attorneys for Alicia Estey and Leslie Webb say the administrators did not force Big City to close.

While the talking points haven’t changed, the briefs outline the arguments that will be before the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment overtones. An attorney for Estey and Webb says the former administrators took no sides in the back-and-forth between Fendley and student activists — honoring the First Amendment rights of all parties. “Boise State has no duty to suppress or censor one group to support another,” W. Christopher Pooser wrote in his March 6 brief.

After a nine-day trial in 2024, an Ada County jury determined that the administrators played an active role in ousting Fendley. Webb and Estey weren’t simply “ensuring and accommodating a free marketplace of ideas,” Morgan D. Goodin, Fendley’s attorney, said in an April 6 brief.

Qualified immunity. As public officials, Estey and Webb have “qualified immunity” from a lawsuit, Pooser wrote. In essence, this means Estey and Webb cannot be subject to financial penalties, unless they knowingly violated Fendley’s rights.

These protections don’t apply, Goodin wrote, because the administrators simply should have known better. “It has been settled for three decades that government officials may not cut ties with independent contractors in retaliation for disfavored speech.”

The $1 million claim against Webb. Jurors ordered Webb to pay Fendley $1 million in punitive damages — part of the $3.6 million verdict now on hold.

Pooser says Webb was unfairly singled out because she was a staff point of contact for the Inclusive Excellence Student Council and council members who opposed Fendley’s presence on campus. “There was simply no evidence presented at trial demonstrating Webb acted with an evil motive, malice or recklessness.”

Goodin disagreed.

“Substantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Webb was not ‘merely listening’ to students who demanded Big City’s removal. … Webb responded to Big City’s speech with distaste from the get-go.”

IESC meeting minutes. Pooser argues that minutes from IESC meetings contain hearsay and should not have been admitted for the jury trial. Goodin says the administrators’ attorneys did not object to the minutes’ admission during trial.

Legal fees. Pooser says his clients should be granted a new trial — or qualified immunity — negating the award of the $1.6 million in legal fees. Goodin notes that Fendley was the prevailing party at trial, and is entitled to fees.

An outside party weighs in

On April 13, a “public interest law firm” that has spent 50 years suing government entities took Fendley’s side.

“As a subcontractor engaged in mundane commercial activity, Ms. Fendley is in the same position as any other citizen — she did not waive her right to full First Amendment protection by opening a coffee shop that happens to be on a state university campus,” the Arlington, Virginia-based Pacific Legal Foundation wrote.

The foundation’s “friend of the court” brief also focused on campus free speech issues.

“Universities should serve as beacons of free inquiry and open debate. … Instead, campuses are boiling with free speech controversies, and university leaders have too often sided with silence, not free discourse.”

One of the brief’s authors is Megan Wold, an attorney, lobbyist and the wife of Theo Wold, a former Trump administration official and Idaho solicitor general.