Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

An Erie County resident had spoken during the public part of 14-15 council meetings before he attempted to object to a motion on an ordinance after the close of public comments. After being told that he was out of order, the resident continued to assert violation of the Sunshine Act and was escorted out. The chair sent a letter stating that the resident could be banned from future meetings if he was disruptive. The district court dismissed civil rights claims (42 U.S.C. 1983), except against the chair. A jury awarded $5,000, but the court entered judgment in favor of the chair. The Third Circuit affirmed. The meeting was a limited public forum, so the council had the right to impose narrowly-tailored, reasonable content-neutral, time, place, and manner restrictions. The resident had adequate alternatives for raising objections to procedures used in adopting ordinances; the evidence did not establish that the chair intended to suppress his message because of content or personal hostility. The only difference between the resident and other speakers at the meeting was the timing of his comments. Because the resident had waived the claim, the court declined to consider whether the council satisfied the state Sunshine Act by reserving time for public comment, but held that the Act does not change the scope of First Amendment rights.

Plaintiff sued defendants when defendants stopped reviewing the additional signatures that had been submitted for a referendum due to a pending legal challenge filed by a third party which was unrelated to defendants' signature validating methods. At issue was whether defendants denied plaintiff's rights to freely associate, petition the government, and vote; whether defendants had denied plaintiff due process and equal protection; and whether defendants had violated plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The court held that plaintiff's right to freely associate, petition the government, and vote were not violated where there was no fundamental right to initiate legislation by means of a referendum as there is a fundamental right to vote. The court also held that plaintiff was not denied due process or equal protection where the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's right to equal protection had not been denied upon a rational basis review and where defendants provided adequate notice to invalidate petitioner signatures and adequate opportunities for review of the invalidation of plaintiff's petition signature. The court also held that the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state a claim for denial of any of plaintiff's constitutional rights was proper and therefore dismissal of his § 1983 was also proper.