In a pivotal legal ruling issued on May 14, 2025, the Iowa District Court in Linn County struck down nearly all of the speech-restricting injunctions in the high-profile case of Chad Pelley v. Dustin Mazgaj et al. The decision significantly weakens Pelley’s attempt to silence critics through civil court orders—and raises fresh questions about where the case goes from here.

Chad Pelley Injunction Dissolved Bailey Symonds by Populist Wire

Symonds Cleared, Mazgaj Partially Restricted

At the heart of the ruling is a clear rejection of Pelley’s broad effort to restrict speech. The court fully dissolved the injunction against Bailey Symonds, stating that Pelley failed to prove she caused harm or was likely to in the future. As of now, Symonds is under no legal restrictions, restoring her full right to speak about the case, attend public meetings, and post freely online.

In the case of Dustin Mazgaj, who operates under the name Butt Crack News Network, the court issued a narrowed injunction: Mazgaj is now only prohibited from publicly referring to Chad Pelley as a:

• “Pedophile”
• “Drug user”
• “Drug dealer”

All other parts of the injunction—including no-contact orders and broad bans on speech or proximity—were dissolved.

Melissa Duffield Confirmed Unrestricted

The court also clarified that Melissa Duffield, another named defendant, was never placed under an injunction at any point. Attempts by Pelley’s legal team to restrict her speech in a separate post-trial filing were also rejected, with the judge referencing potential First Amendment concerns.

BCNN Not a Company, Just a Username

In a notable clarification, the court determined that Butt Crack News Network is not a separate business or legal entity—it’s simply the name of Mazgaj’s YouTube account. As such, any restrictions on BCNN are effectively just extensions of those on Mazgaj personally.

Skylar Price Still in Limbo

One original defendant, Skylar Price, has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default. The court did not revisit the injunction as it applies to Price, meaning the original restrictions may still technically be in effect—but without any new legal activity or defense.

Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms Not Bound

Though Pelley filed a second motion earlier this year to add Beau Bish and the media group Flex Your Freedoms to the injunction, the court noted that they have not yet been formally served. As a result, they remain unrestricted by the court at this time.

Where Does Pelley’s Case Go From Here?

The judge’s ruling sends a clear signal: courts will not issue broad gag orders unless the speech in question is proven to be false and harmful—and even then, only in narrowly tailored ways.

Pelley may still pursue defamation claims, but without the broad powers of a speech-restricting injunction, he faces a steeper road. The ruling emphasizes the high bar courts place on prior restraint, especially when it involves criticism of someone involved in public matters like real estate development, civic boards, and local politics.

As for the remaining claims—libel, false light, and emotional distress—they will now move toward a full trial. But the public gag orders Pelley once used to silence his critics have been largely rolled back, and the spotlight on his case is only getting brighter.

In a decisive move, an Iowa District Court has denied a motion by Chad Pelley to delay a critical hearing related to two controversial speech-restricting injunctions. The hearing, originally scheduled for Friday, April 25th at 10:30 AM in the Linn County Courthouse, will proceed as planned.

The ruling marks a significant development in what many are calling a key First Amendment test in the state.

For nearly three months, multiple individuals have been under strict court orders prohibiting them from discussing Pelley publicly or attending certain public events in the city of Marion. These restrictions stem from injunctions granted in January—issued without prior notice—which plaintiffs claim were necessary to protect against alleged harassment. Critics, however, say the orders amount to an unconstitutional gag on public speech and civic participation.

The Stakes Going Into Friday

The upcoming hearing offers the first real opportunity for those under the injunctions to challenge their legality. At issue is whether Iowa courts can continue to enforce broad, preemptive speech restrictions on individuals based solely on allegations—without a full trial or opportunity for defense prior to enforcement.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to expand the reach of the court orders to include new parties, including the political media outlet Flex Your Freedoms (FYF) and its founder, Beau Bish, citing a video confrontation involving a local bank and accusations of financial misconduct. If granted, this would extend court-ordered silence to additional critics and content creators.

Public Access, Private Silence

Despite the public interest, there will be no recording or filming of the hearing allowed—limiting access to those who attend in person. This lack of transparency, combined with the ongoing silence from elected officials and local media outlets, has intensified public scrutiny of the case.

With major news outlets avoiding coverage and city leaders declining to comment, Friday’s hearing has become not just a legal proceeding—but a litmus test for civic accountability and the boundaries of protected speech in Iowa.

In Iowa’s Linn County, a significant legal battle over free speech rights is intensifying—yet the broader community remains largely unaware.

For nearly four months, several local activists and content creators have been legally prohibited from speaking about Chad Pelley, a private citizen involved in local controversies. Now, this unusual legal maneuver is expanding to include additional voices, further raising concerns over the misuse of civil injunctions to stifle public discourse.

Chad Pelley recently filed a motion seeking a 30-day delay in the scheduled hearing, prolonging the injunction’s restrictions to a fourth consecutive month. Bailey Symonds, one of the affected individuals, described this continuation as based on “perjured statements.”

Court Restrictions Silencing Local Voices

Local activist Bailey Symonds recently confirmed via social media that she and Dustin Mazgaj, associated with the Butt Crack News Network (BCNN), have been under two injunctions since January. These injunctions prevent them from publicly discussing Chad Pelley or attending specific public events and meetings within Marion.

Symonds expressed frustration:

“I’m under 2 injunctions restricting my speech and barring my attendance at certain public events and meetings in Marion. We’ve been denied the ability to film our upcoming court hearing, making physical attendance the only way the public can witness proceedings.”

A hearing originally scheduled for April 25th at the Linn County Courthouse aimed to lift these injunctions, but Pelley’s recent motion to postpone has placed any immediate relief in doubt.

Expanding Restrictions

The original injunction was granted in January 2025 against five individuals: Dustin Mazgaj, Skylar Price, Bailey Symonds, and BCNN. Chad Pelley accused them of harassment, defamation, and causing emotional distress, leading to the court’s sweeping order that restricted public speech and physical proximity to him and related businesses.
Article Section Updated to reflect Melissa Duffield’s Injunction Status: “The injunction was not granted against me. I was the only one excluded.“

In late February, Pelley took additional action, requesting the court extend these restrictions to Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms (FYF), citing a video confrontation at Community Savings Bank in Dyersville. According to Pelley’s filings, FYF and Bish allegedly continued harassment and defamatory practices associated with BCNN.

Constitutional Concerns: A Dangerous Precedent

While injunctions are sometimes appropriate to prevent harassment, this case uniquely involves broad restrictions on speech regarding a figure involved in public controversies. These restrictions—especially since imposed without prior notice to those affected—represent what First Amendment advocates describe as one of the most severe forms of censorship: prior restraint.

Compounding these constitutional concerns is a troubling silence from key community institutions:

Mayor O’Donnell and the Marion City Council refuse to answer questions regarding their knowledge or stance, despite internal emails suggesting support for Chad Pelley.

The Gazette, a major regional newspaper, has neglected to cover this significant free speech issue.

KCRG, another prominent local news organization, acknowledged complete unawareness of the case.

Pelley’s legal representatives, who actively pursue expanded restrictions, declined to publicly comment.

Next Steps and Broader Implications

With Pelley’s motion to delay proceedings, the court-ordered silence continues without resolution. If Pelley’s new motion succeeds, activists and media organizations could remain silenced until late spring, creating an environment where public debate and accountability suffer.

Ultimately, the issue here extends beyond personal disputes. It raises critical questions:

Should courts limit speech about public controversies, and who should define the boundaries?

In the absence of local government transparency and mainstream media coverage, it’s now up to concerned citizens and independent observers to protect the foundational right of free expression.

This issue is no longer merely about Chad Pelley and a handful of critics.

The lack of disregard for Iowans and potential the Trump Administration is very troubling.

It’s about the fundamental right of a community to openly discuss and debate public matters without fear of legal retaliation.