Boise State University-Big City Coffee First Amendment Case Advances to Idaho Supreme Court
Why It Matters
More than $5.2 million in taxpayer money hangs in the balance as the long-running legal dispute between Boise State University and former coffee shop owner Sarah Jo Fendley moves forward before the Idaho Supreme Court. The case has become a flashpoint in a broader debate about free speech on Idaho’s public university campuses — and whether university officials can retaliate against contractors who express politically disfavored viewpoints.
The outcome could set a significant precedent for how Idaho’s public institutions handle First Amendment protections for those who do business on state-funded campuses.
What Happened
Fendley, the former owner of Big City Coffee, closed her coffee shop located inside the Boise State University library in October 2020. She alleges she was effectively forced off campus because of her vocal public support for law enforcement — a position that drew hostility from student activists at the time.
After a nine-day trial in Ada County in 2024, a jury sided with Fendley, finding that two Boise State administrators — Alicia Estey and Leslie Webb — played an active role in ousting her from campus. The jury awarded Fendley a verdict of $3.6 million, including $1 million in punitive damages against Webb specifically, along with $1.6 million in legal fees.
Both administrators have since left Idaho. The case is now before the Idaho Supreme Court, with no hearing yet scheduled, leaving the timeline for a final resolution unclear.
The Arguments
In opening briefs filed with the Supreme Court, attorneys for both sides restated their core positions. Attorney Morgan D. Goodin, representing Fendley, argued in an April 6 brief that administrators did far more than passively facilitate campus debate. Goodin wrote that Webb “responded to Big City’s speech with distaste from the get-go” and that the administrators actively worked to remove Fendley in response to her speech.
Attorney W. Christopher Pooser, representing Estey and Webb, pushed back in a March 6 brief, contending the administrators never took sides and were simply managing competing campus voices. “Boise State has no duty to suppress or censor one group to support another,” Pooser wrote. He also argued the administrators are shielded by qualified immunity as public officials, meaning they cannot face financial penalties unless they knowingly violated Fendley’s constitutional rights.
Pooser additionally argued that meeting minutes from the Inclusive Excellence Student Council — a group whose members opposed Fendley’s presence on campus — constituted hearsay and should not have been admitted at trial. Goodin countered that the opposing attorneys raised no objection to those minutes during the original trial proceedings.
By the Numbers
- $3.6 million — jury verdict awarded to Fendley after the 2024 Ada County trial
- $1.6 million — legal fees awarded on top of the jury verdict
- $1 million — punitive damages assessed specifically against administrator Leslie Webb
- 5 years — approximate duration of the legal dispute
- 50 years — length of time the Pacific Legal Foundation has litigated government accountability cases
Outside Support
On April 13, the Pacific Legal Foundation, an Arlington, Virginia-based public interest law firm with a five-decade record of challenging government overreach, filed a “friend of the court” brief siding with Fendley. The foundation argued that Fendley did not surrender her First Amendment rights simply by operating a business on a public university campus.
“Universities should serve as beacons of free inquiry and open debate,” the foundation wrote. “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 and wife of Theo Wold, a former Trump administration official and former Idaho solicitor general.
Zoom Out
The Boise State case mirrors a national trend of First Amendment disputes erupting on public university campuses, where administrators have faced accusations of selectively enforcing speech protections based on ideological alignment. The case has put Boise State’s political image under a microscope at a time when scrutiny of campus ideology across the Mountain West continues to intensify. Similar disputes have drawn attention to how Idaho’s public institutions balance competing legal and political pressures.
What’s Next
The Idaho Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case. Once briefing is complete, the court will determine whether to affirm the jury verdict, overturn it, or grant the administrators a new trial. A ruling in favor of Fendley would uphold the $5.2 million award; a ruling for the administrators could eliminate or substantially reduce that financial exposure for Boise State and the two former officials.
About the Author
