Boise State University-Big City Coffee First Amendment Case Reaches Idaho Supreme Court with $5.2 Million in Taxpayer Money at Stake
More than five years after the dispute began, the high-profile First Amendment lawsuit between Boise State University and the former owner of Big City Coffee is now working its way through the Idaho Supreme Court, with more than $5.2 million in taxpayer money hanging in the balance. The case, which drew national attention for its questions about campus free speech and government retaliation, has no hearing date scheduled, leaving the timeline for a final resolution uncertain.
Background: Coffee Shop Closes, Lawsuit Follows
Sarah Jo Fendley, the former owner of Big City Coffee, closed her coffee shop located inside the Boise State University library in October 2020. Fendley has maintained that she was effectively pushed off campus because of her vocal public support for law enforcement — a position that drew backlash from a segment of the student population at the time.
After a nine-day trial in 2024, an Ada County jury sided with Fendley, awarding her a $3.6 million verdict along with $1.6 million in legal fees — bringing the total taxpayer exposure to more than $5.2 million. The jury determined that two former Boise State administrators, Alicia Estey and Leslie Webb, played an active role in ousting Fendley from campus. Both administrators have since left Idaho.
The case has become a flashpoint in a broader debate about ideological culture at Boise State and on university campuses statewide — a conversation that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and taxpayers alike. For readers following related legal proceedings involving Idaho institutions, a separate First Amendment-adjacent case involving the Boise diocese is also making its way through the Idaho Supreme Court.
Key Arguments Before the Idaho Supreme Court
In recent weeks, attorneys for both sides filed their opening briefs with the court, restating and sharpening the arguments from trial.
Attorneys representing Estey and Webb, led by W. Christopher Pooser, argue that the former administrators did not force Big City to close and took no sides in the conflict between Fendley and student activists. “Boise State has no duty to suppress or censor one group to support another,” Pooser wrote in his March 6 brief.
Pooser also argued that as public officials, Estey and Webb are entitled to qualified immunity — a legal protection that shields government employees from financial penalties unless they knowingly violated someone’s constitutional rights. He further contended that meeting minutes from the Inclusive Excellence Student Council, which were admitted as evidence during the trial, contained hearsay and should not have been used before the jury.
Fendley’s attorney, Morgan D. Goodin, pushed back on each argument in an April 6 brief. “It has been settled for three decades that government officials may not cut ties with independent contractors in retaliation for disfavored speech,” Goodin wrote, arguing qualified immunity does not apply because the administrators “simply should have known better.”
On the question of Webb’s $1 million punitive damages award — the largest individual portion of the verdict — Goodin argued that Webb “responded to Big City’s speech with distaste from the get-go” and was far more than a passive observer to student demands.
Pacific Legal Foundation Weighs In
On April 13, the Pacific Legal Foundation, an Arlington, Virginia-based public interest law firm with a 50-year track record of suing government entities over civil liberties violations, filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting Fendley.
“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 foundation wrote.
The brief also addressed the broader campus free speech climate. “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 and lobbyist and the wife of Theo Wold, a former Trump administration official who previously served as Idaho’s solicitor general.
What Comes Next
No oral argument date has been set before the Idaho Supreme Court, meaning the case could remain unresolved for additional months. Once briefing is complete, the court will determine whether to schedule arguments or rule on the written record alone.
The outcome will carry significant implications — not only for the $5.2 million in taxpayer funds at stake, but for how Idaho’s public universities may handle future disputes involving contractors, free speech, and politically sensitive student activism. Ada County taxpayers and Boise State students alike will be watching closely as the case moves forward.
Residents interested in Idaho’s ongoing legal landscape may also want to follow Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s recent endorsement activity, which reflects a broader shift in statewide conservative politics heading into election season.