Background
Weston Merriott, an online journalist, attended Bossier City Council meetings to advocate for term limits. During public comment periods, he was interrupted and threatened with removal by council members for remarks criticizing council members and questioning outside counsel. The City Council had adopted a policy barring personal, impertinent, slanderous, or boisterous remarks. Merriott sued under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code and Louisiana law, alleging the policy violated the First Amendment and Louisiana Open Meetings Law. The district court dismissed all claims, but the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo.
The court’s reasoning
The court first addressed the overbreadth challenge, concluding that the policy’s terms were so broad they prohibited a substantial number of constitutionally protected applications relative to their legitimate sweep. The court interpreted terms like personal, impertinent, slanderous, and boisterous according to their ordinary meaning and found they could prohibit bold criticism of officials. The court then addressed the vagueness challenge, holding that the undefined terms failed to provide reasonable notice and turned on the subjective sensitivity of listeners, citing Coates versus City of Cincinnati. Finally, the court found the policy constituted viewpoint discrimination because it prohibited speech merely because it was offensive or disparaging to council members, citing Matal versus Tam and Iancu versus Brunetti. The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim as the complaint did not sufficiently allege the necessary elements, but reversed the dismissal of the overbreadth, vagueness, and viewpoint discrimination claims.
Because the Policy’s prohibitions against personal, impertinent, and slanderous speech are viewpoint based, they are also content based to an impermissible degree and unreasonable.
Merriott v. City of Bossier City, No. 25-30325, slip op. at 23 (5th Cir. June 25, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision invalidates the specific Bossier City Council policy on its face, requiring the city to revise its rules for public comment to avoid prohibiting protected speech based on content or viewpoint. It reinforces that limited public forums cannot restrict speech simply because it is offensive to government officials.