Victory in State Court in the Georgia “Littering” Case
By Glen Allen, Esq.
As explained in a May 13, 2026 Update on Three Major Cases article on FEF’s website, Matthew and Hillary Jacobs were arrested and Michael Weaver threatened with arrest in Georgia for alleged “littering” based on their distribution of flyers critical of Jewish power and influence. Mr. Jacobs was assaulted by a jail guard while incarcerated after his arrest. Mr. Weaver, reasonably believing he would receive similar mistreatment, went into reclusion.
In March 2025, the Jacobs and Mr. Weaver, represented by Glen Allen, Randy Sheppard, and Fred Kelly (the “FEF-Affiliated Attorneys”), filed in Georgia federal district court a complaint against (among others) several deputies and employees of the Douglas County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office alleging numerous claims, including First Amendment retaliation. The district court dismissed the claims that sought injunctive and declaratory relief, predicating its decision on federal abstention doctrine, under which a federal court may abstain from adjudicating a case if doing so would interfere with a pending state court prosecution. This doctrine is subject to important exceptions, including bad faith state prosecution. The FEF-Affiliated Attorneys argued these exceptions apply in this case, but the district court rejected these arguments.
The district court, however, did not dismiss but rather stayed (suspended) the Jacobs’ and Mr. Weaver’s other claims for damages, pending resolution in state court of the “littering” prosecution.
In October 2025, the FEF-Affiliated Attorneys appealed the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal has been fully briefed and awaits oral argument or further action by the federal appellate court.
Meanwhile, the Georgia state prosecutors, after long delays, finally took initial steps to prosecute the Jacobs in state court on the faux “littering” charges. In late April 2026, Randy Sheppard on behalf of the Jacobs filed and argued a motion to quash the littering charges on the grounds that the political flyers in question were not “litter” as defined under the relevant Georgia statute. The state court, to its credit, granted the motion. The court, after setting forth the basic facts and legal principles applicable in the case, held:
The Accusation at issue charges the Defendants with five counts of littering and cites the words of the related statute at issue in Page 5 of 7 each Count. However, the Accusation fails to apprise the Defendants of what the “litter” was, how they supposedly threw it or left it, or specifically where it was supposedly left or thrown. Not a single count states anything beyond a recitation of the statute. The Accusation fails to allege the charged offense with the particularity required by OCGA § 17-7-71(c). It fails to state the alleged violation so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood. The lack of specificity prevents the Defendant from preparing an adequate defense because it doesn’t specify how they supposedly violated the law or what acts constituted the violations.
This issue becomes even more important given the fact that this case involves behavior possibly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Defendants were engaged in distributing leaflets in baggies with corn inside them to weigh them down. The leaflets contained written information concerning various issues related to the government’s partnership with Israel and other issues related to the Jewish individuals. It is material that many might find antisemitic and offensive as they did in this case. That is what prompted the initial calls to law enforcement. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment prohibits cities from banning the distribution of handbills, leaflets, circulars, and papers in the streets or from house to house. The Supreme Court recognized the freedom to distribute such information to every citizen is vital to the preservation of a free society. Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Statesboro Publishing Co. v. City of Sylvania, 271 Ga. 92 (1999).
The state court, unlike the federal court, thus clearly and correctly assessed the manifest defects and flagrant constitutional infirmities of the defendants’ bogus prosecution.
Fortified by the state court decision, Fred Kelly on behalf of the Jacobs and Mr. Weaver promptly filed a motion to expedite the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. The aim of the motion, which is pending, is to have the case returned immediately to the federal district court. There the Jacobs and Mr. Weaver will move forward vigorously with their damages claims as well as their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
