Edward Andrew “Coach” Weinhaus was removed from a Highland Park High School Homecoming football game after the federal court record described him as “creepy” and following a female student.
He turned the football-game removal into a federal civil-rights lawsuit. Judge Jorge L. Alonso dismissed it with prejudice.
The opinion opens with the central fact: school officials and local police told Weinhaus he would be arrested for trespassing if he did not leave the game. He sued the school district, school officials, the City of Highland Park, and the Highland Park police chief. The court ended the case.
The procedural posture makes the dismissal sharper
This was a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. At that stage, the court accepted the well-pleaded facts and drew reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor.
That procedural posture matters. Even with that benefit, the amended complaint failed to state a claim.
The football game
In October 2025, Weinhaus bought a six-dollar ticket and attended the Highland Park High School Homecoming football game. He attended individually and in his claimed capacities as a representative of Children of the Court and Judiciocracy.
During the second quarter, a female student accused him of being “creepy” and brought the matter to Dean of Students Don McCord. McCord approached and asked Weinhaus to leave. Weinhaus refused. McCord then demanded that he not sit in the stands, and Weinhaus complied.
The student kept complaining to security.
Security, police, and the trespass warning
By the third quarter, McCord returned with Highland Park High School Head of Security Lane Linder and three Highland Park police officers.
By then, much of the crowd had left. The female student remained at the game.
McCord demanded that Weinhaus leave or be arrested for trespassing. The reason was direct: the female student was uncomfortable with his presence because Weinhaus was “following her.”
Weinhaus disputed that characterization. McCord escorted him out and told him he could return to future events.
The court record says a female student called him “creepy,” security complaints continued, three Highland Park police officers arrived, and Weinhaus was told to leave or face arrest.
The lawsuit theory
Weinhaus, Children of the Court, and Judiciocracy sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They framed the removal as constitutional retaliation and due process injury.
The amended complaint asserted First Amendment retaliation, due process, municipal liability, and deliberate indifference. The court rejected every federal theory.
What the court held
- First Amendment Children of the Court and Judiciocracy dropped out of the free-speech counts because only Weinhaus, not the organizations, engaged in the newspaper speech described in the complaint.
- Minimal injury Being escorted out of a single football game, while being told he could return to future events, was “truly minimal” and not enough for a First Amendment retaliation claim.
- School property The due-process claims failed because members of the public do not have a constitutionally protected right to access school property.
- Municipal liability The Monell and deliberate-indifference theories failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation.
The First Amendment claim failed
The court used the Seventh Circuit’s three-part retaliation framework. A plaintiff must show protected activity, a deprivation likely to deter future First Amendment activity, and a link between the protected activity and the government action.
The court accepted that Weinhaus engaged in protected activity when he criticized Highland Park High School security in a local newspaper. But the rest of the claim collapsed.
Children of the Court and Judiciocracy were dismissed from the free-speech counts because the opinion ties the newspaper speech to Weinhaus alone. The organizations did not engage in that speech.
The remaining claim failed because the deprivation was too small. The court noted that the removal was limited to one football game and that Weinhaus was told he could return to future Highland Park High School events.
The due-process claims failed
The access theory failed because the public does not have a constitutional right to enter or move around school property. Without a protected interest, there was no procedural or substantive due-process claim.
The Monell and deliberate-indifference theories failed
The municipal-liability and deliberate-indifference theories needed an underlying constitutional violation.
The court found none. That ended the additional theories too.
Dismissed with prejudice
The final ruling was direct. Judge Alonso granted both dismissal motions, noted that this was the plaintiffs’ second attempt to respond to dismissal arguments, and held that the amended complaint still failed to state a claim.
Dismissed with prejudice. Civil case terminated.
The legal result is clean: Weinhaus sued over the football-game removal, and the case ended in dismissal with prejudice.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The source opinion describing the Highland Park High School football-game removal and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.
This viewer will load when it is near the viewport. Use the button below to load it immediately.
Use the controls inside the viewer to scroll, zoom, or open the document in a full-page view from the link above.