On March 28, FSSP shareholder Christopher P. Finney, with co-counsel The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman, filed a brief opposing the petition for writ of certiorari in City of Cincinnati, Ohio et al. v. Mark Miller, et al. The brief, which can be viewed here, argues that cert. should be denied because Sixth Circuit correctly applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to its review of the preliminary injunction granted by the district court in favor of FSSP clients and plaintiffs Mark Miller, Citizens Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes, and WeDemandAVote.com.

In the underlying case, the plaintiffs alleged that the City of Cincinnati improperly restricted or limited access to several public fora at City Hall.  In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that in 2008 the City of Cincinnati relied on an unconstitutionally vague administrative regulation to permit groups such as the Cincinnati Public School Board and Citizens for Community Values to hold press conferences and rallies in areas such as the lobby steps inside City Hall, while denying the same right to the plaintiffs.  The district court ruled that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and issued an injunction.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

As a result of the City of Cincinnati’s appeal, request for rehearing, and petition for certiorari, the case has now lasted for more than two and a half years, with the underlying merits still to be addressed.

The docket may be viewed here.  The Court is likely to consider the cert. petition at a conference on or after April 29.

FSSP shareholder Christopher P. Finney will appear live on Fox News at 1:20 p.m. on Saturday, October 23, to discuss a lawsuit recently filed by FSSP clients Tom Brinkman and C.O.A.S.T. The lawsuit alleges that Cincinnati Public Schools transported a number of students to an early voting location during school hours, handed them sample Democratic ballots, and then took them for ice cream. The lawsuit has received attention from both local and national media.

Judge Donald Nugent has granted a temporary restraining order in favor of the Andover Township residents who had been denied permission to hold a Constitution Day rally because township leaders deemed it to be “too political.” The TRO nominally prohibits the township from blocking the rally until the merits of the case can be decided, but as a practical matter it will allow the rally to go forward on September 17. The plaintiffs were represented by FSSP attorney Christopher Finney.

This is a victory for proponents free speech and assembly rights, regardless of political affiliation. The Constitution prohibits government from telling people what they can say and with whom they can associate. Sounds like Andover Township officials need the Constitution Day rally more than anyone.

FSSP attorney Christopher Finney has filed a complaint against Andover Township, Ohio, for blocking a Constitution Day rally. Andover Township officials bizarrely claimed that the rally–scheduled to coincide with the date prescribed by Congress for education about and celebration of the Constitution–would be “too political,” and therefore inappropriate for the township’s public square.

The Constitution, of course, specifically protects the rights of the people to speak freely and peaceably assemble.

Joining FSSP on the pleadings were Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law (of which Finney is also a board member) and Curt Hartman. As Thompson astutely noted, “The government’s action in this case, ironically, demonstrates the need for greater public understanding of Constitutional rights. One way to do that is through commemoration of Constitution Day.”

In a 5-4 decision released just minutes ago [PDF], the Supreme Court overturned the City of Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership, extending District of Columbia v. Heller‘s holding that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. (Heller was limited to Congress’s right to regulate gun ownership; McDonald extends Heller to state and local governments.) At its core, therefore, McDonald is as much an incorporation case as a Second Amendment case. In a sense, this is an interesting decision for the Roberts Court, as incorporation is arguably at odds with originalism; the Roberts Court is popularly perceived as an originalist Court.

Second Amendemnt opponents take note: the Court has implied that it will allow certain “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership short of an outright ban, though the extent of those restrictions is not clear.

In a decision announced earlier today, the First District Court of Appeals affirmed a victory against the City of Cincinnati in a taxpayer lawsuit. The issue at hand was whether City Council could usurp authority delegated to the City Manager under state law–specifically, by requiring the Manager to submit for Council’s approval the names of nominees to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority. The court of common pleas held that Council could not, and issued both a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting Council from doing so.

The First District affirmed in all respects, and agreed with the trial court’s statement that the “successful prosecution of the action had prevented illegal government activity in the form of ‘the assumption of power by the Cincinnati city council that it was not entitled to assume or exercise.’”

The case was brought by Christopher Smitherman. He was represented by FSSP lawyers Chris Finney and Josh Bolinger, as well as The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman.

The case is City of Cincinnati ex rel. Christopher Smitherman v. City of Cincinnati [PDF].