ACLU Seeks to Join Rahway Free Speech Lawsuit on Appeal
Civil liberties group says case raises First Amendment questions and could shape how New Jersey handles lawsuits over public speech.
The Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton houses the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
Chris Howell | March 6, 2026
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is seeking to join an ongoing legal battle in Rahway.
The ACLU argues the case raises important questions about free speech and New Jersey law.
The lawsuit began after Alan Levy and his wife, Lisa Vandever-Levy, were allegedly banned from the Rahway Community Voice Facebook group.
The couple sued people connected to the group. According to the plaintiffs’ filings, they believe the ban violated their free speech rights.
The defendants later filed counterclaims tied to legal motions the couple submitted during the case.
In 2025, a judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division allowed those counterclaims to move forward. Levy and Vandever-Levy appealed that ruling.
DON’T LET AN ALGORITHM DECIDE YOUR NEWS
Sign up for The Central Jerseyan Newsletter for independent hyperlocal news and events every Sunday.
The ACLU-NJ confirmed to The Central Jerseyan that it filed a legal brief this week seeking permission from the court to participate in the appeal in support of the Levys.
An amicus brief—Latin for “friend of the court”—allows outside organizations to provide legal arguments in cases they believe could affect broader public interests.
“We’re seeking to participate in the case as amicus because it raises important issues relating to the First Amendment and the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA),” said Maia Raposo, communications director for the organization.
The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, often called UPEPA, is New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law. It is designed to stop lawsuits that attempt to punish or silence people for speaking about public issues or criticizing the government.
The brief also focuses on a legal motion the plaintiffs filed earlier in the case, asking the court to disqualify a law firm representing the defendants. The plaintiffs argued the firm — Rainone, Coughlin and Minchello — has a conflict of interest because it also represents the City of Rahway.
According to the ACLU’s brief, filing such a motion in court is a form of protected “petitioning” activity. The organization argues that citizens have a constitutional right to ask courts to resolve disputes involving government and public affairs.
The ACLU also argues the trial court relied on the plaintiffs’ social media posts criticizing Rahway officials when evaluating their motives in the case. In the organization’s view, using political speech outside the courtroom as evidence of bad faith risks punishing protected expression.
Not everyone involved in the case agrees with how the lawsuit has been characterized.
During Monday night’s Rahway City Council meeting, township attorney David Minchello addressed the dispute directly.
Minchello said the counterclaim against Levy is not about criticism of Rahway officials but about how the lawsuit itself was used.
“He’s not being sued for criticizing the mayor,” Minchello said during the meeting. “He was counter-sued by Rahway Voice for what’s called abuse of process.”
Minchello said abuse-of-process claims can arise when someone is accused of using litigation for purposes other than resolving a legal dispute.
He acknowledged that Levy’s criticism of city officials was mentioned in the filing but said it was included only as background.
“It’s not the basis of the lawsuit,” Minchello said. “It’s just an underlying fact that was used.”
Minchello also noted that a judge previously declined to dismiss the counterclaim, allowing the case to continue.
At the center of the dispute is also a broader question about how free speech applies to large online community groups.
In court filings, the plaintiffs argue the Rahway Community Voice Facebook group functions as a modern “virtual town square,” where thousands of residents gather to debate local issues, elections, and government decisions.
New Jersey courts have previously recognized that free speech protections can sometimes apply in privately owned spaces if they function like public forums for civic discussion. The plaintiffs argue the Facebook group plays that role in Rahway.
The appellate court must now decide whether to allow the ACLU to participate in the case before the brief becomes part of the official record.
The appeal will then move forward through the court’s normal process, which could include additional legal filings and possibly oral arguments before a panel of judges.
A ruling could help clarify how New Jersey courts apply the state’s anti-SLAPP law in cases involving political speech and online community forums.
Editor’s note: The Central Jerseyan is free to read and supported by advertising. If you value this kind of local reporting and want to help sustain it, you can become a citizen supporter on Patreon. Your contribution helps fund continued coverage of local government, schools, and community issues.