The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment Monday in *Patricia M. Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Community School District*, rejecting claims by eight local residents who challenged their school board's handling of a bond question reconsideration petition.
Patricia Minerich and seven other residents of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor filed a Rule 80B complaint seeking judicial review of the Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor School Board's decision to deny their petition for reconsideration of a bond question. The residents also brought independent claims against the Board and several individual board members, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and seeking attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute.
The Superior Court for Lincoln County, with Judge Cashman presiding, denied the residents' Rule 80B complaint and dismissed their independent constitutional claims. The residents appealed both rulings to the state's highest court.
Justice Mead, writing for a five-member panel that included Chief Justice Stanfill and Justices Connors, Douglas, and Lipez, found no error in either the school board's original decision or the Superior Court's subsequent rulings. The court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
The case arose from events that began on Feb. 6, 2024, according to facts drawn from the Superior Court's decision and supported by the record. The residents' petition sought reconsideration of a bond question, though the specific details of the underlying bond proposal and the grounds for seeking reconsideration were not detailed in the available portion of the opinion.
The residents argued that the school board's denial of their reconsideration petition violated proper procedures and that their constitutional rights to free speech and petition were infringed upon during the process. They sought both reversal of the board's decision and monetary damages in the form of attorney fees under the federal civil rights statute, which allows prevailing parties in constitutional violation cases to recover legal costs.
Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure provides the mechanism for judicial review of administrative decisions by local government bodies, including school boards. Under this rule, courts review whether the administrative body followed proper procedures and whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The school board was represented in the litigation along with six individual board members: Ronnie Campbell, Troy Lewis, Matt Doucette, Paul Roberts, Darrell Gudroe, and Sewall Maddocks. The residents who joined Minerich as plaintiffs were James Farrin, Virginia Farrin, Elizabeth Grant, Roy Tholl, Stephen Carbone, Pamela Mancusco, and Daniel Zajdel.
The case was argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Oct. 9, 2025, and decided on Feb. 10, 2026. The relatively quick turnaround from argument to decision suggests the legal issues were straightforward, with the court finding the lower court's analysis sound.
The Supreme Judicial Court's affirmance means the school board's original decision to deny the reconsideration petition stands, and the residents will not recover attorney fees under the federal civil rights statute. The ruling also establishes that the board's process for handling the petition did not violate the residents' First Amendment rights.
School bond questions are often contentious local issues, as they directly impact property taxes and educational funding. Residents typically have various procedural rights to challenge bond proposals, including the right to petition for reconsideration under certain circumstances.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision reinforces the principle that courts will not substitute their judgment for that of local school boards in matters within the boards' administrative discretion, provided proper procedures are followed and decisions are supported by evidence.
For the Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Community School District, the ruling represents a complete victory, with both the underlying administrative decision and the handling of constitutional claims upheld. The residents, meanwhile, exhausted their appeals options with this decision from the state's highest court.
The case demonstrates the challenges residents face when seeking to overturn local government decisions through the courts. While Rule 80B provides a pathway for judicial review, courts generally defer to local administrative bodies' expertise and decision-making authority within their jurisdictions.
The decision also highlights the high bar for establishing First Amendment violations in the context of local government proceedings, particularly when residents seek monetary damages under federal civil rights law.