Cleveland City Council Agrees to Court Order Prohibiting It From Enforcing Most Public Comment Rules

Chris Martin speaking in September Credit: Cleveland City Council/TV20

Cleveland City Council will be prohibited from enforcing most of its original public comment policies under a temporary restraining order agreed upon today by the body and Chris Martin, who filed a federal lawsuit against council last month contending it violated his First Amendment rights by cutting of his microphone during a September meeting.

The court order will go into effect on Jan. 8.

After negotiations ordered by the court, council agreed to only enforce three rules during public comment portions for now: Speakers still must pre-register, there will continue to be a 10-speaker limit, and they may only talk for up to three minutes.

The TRO will remain in effect, as the two sides brief the court, until the judge rules on Martin’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent council from enforcing its other rules until the lawsuit is resolved.

Martin, who is represented by the First Amendment Clinic at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, is also seeking a permanent injunction.

“I’m bringing this lawsuit because members of the public should be able to speak on issues they care about without fear of being silenced because the council’s presiding officer disapproves of their viewpoint,” Martin previously told Scene.

At the September meeting, Martin listed the names of members and the amounts of money they received from the Council Leadership Fund, a political action committee controlled by Griffin which has financed some members’ reelection campaigns and was used this year to fight Issue 38. Griffin interrupted the public comment and told Martin he was violating council’s policy. When Martin continued, his microphone was cut off.

“Censoring Mr. Martin while he was engaged in core political speech was an affront to Mr. Martin and a serious violation of his rights under the First Amendment — and really to all of our rights to hear what Mr. Martin hoped to say,” Andy Geronimo, director of the First Amendment Clinic, previously told Scene. “Government officials cannot silence speech simply because it criticizes them or offends their sensibilities, and Council’s lack of meaningful action on this matter unfortunately made it necessary for Mr. Martin to proceed with a lawsuit to vindicate and enforce his First Amendment rights.”

Council has already updated its public comment policy online to reflect the order. A spokesperson declined to comment.

Martin’s attorneys addressed numerous issues with council’s longstanding policies late last year in a letter to the city before Martin filed his lawsuit.

Among its complaints, it says that prohibiting speakers from using indecent or discriminatory language, addressing individual council members or speaking only on one side of particular issues discriminates against certain viewpoints.

On the topic of who can speak at meetings, the clinic argues that council shouldn’t limit eligibility to those from the city of Cleveland because residents from surrounding areas still frequent the city and contribute money and labor.

Lawyers also say attendees should be permitted to hold reasonably sized signs because they’re an accessible alternative for those who can’t stand at the podium, speak and be heard, or simply those who aren’t one of the 10 pre-registered speakers to share their message.

“Our position is that much of that existing policy is unconstitutional as written,” Geronimo said.

Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.