By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Public bodies can accept written testimony in lieu of public comment under the Open Meetings Act, the Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision issued Tuesday.
The ruling came in an appeal from gun rights group that challenged a Court of Claims decision to dismiss their lawsuit against the Legislature in an OMA spat over committee testimony in 2023.
In a published opinion written by Judge Mark Boonstra, the panel in Michigan Open Carry v. House of Representatives (COA Docket No. 368942) affirmed the Court of Claims’ holding that the House violated the OMA, but also that it correctly dismissed the case. Judge Anica Letica and Judge Michelle Rick joined the opinion.
The panel also found that the lower court’s interpretation of the OMA was sound and that the groups misinterpreted the holding to say that a public body complies with the OMA by accepting written communication only – which was at the heart of the appeal.
Both Michigan Open Carry and Great Lakes Gun Rights denounced the ruling in separate statements, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent.
“The Legislature tried to muzzle gun owners, and now the courts are backing them up. This isn’t just about meetings – it’s about our right to stand up and say ‘no’ to gun control in person, not just on some ignored scrap of paper,” Casey Armitage, president of Michigan Open Carry, said. “This decision emboldens every anti-gun politician to shut out the people they’re supposed to serve.”
Brenden Boudreau, executive director of Great Lakes Gun Rights, said the decision was a “gut punch to every Michigan gun owner who refuses to bow to Lansing’s anti-gun tyranny.”
“The Court of Appeals just handed politicians a free pass to gag us while they plot to strip away our Second Amendment rights,” Boudreau said in a statement. “Written notes don’t cut it when they’re ramming through laws to disarm us – this ruling lets them hide behind paper while we lose our voice and our freedom.”
The dispute stemmed from committee meetings held by the House and Senate in 2023 regarding firearms legislation. Open Carry Michigan and Great Lake Gun Rights sued the chambers alleging OMA violations because some members of the groups were unable to testify against two pending 11-bill packages mostly dealing with gun control and safety.
Judge James Redford ruled the Senate was not in violation of the OMA during those meetings, but the House was because it didn’t have specific rules regarding public participation.
Still, Redford dismissed the lawsuit because the gun rights groups failed to show the House would violate the OMA in the same way again.
The groups appealed but did so specifically challenging a misinterpretation in Redford’s ruling.
“Contrary to (the group’s) characterization, the trial court did not decide that a public body complies with the OMA if it limits the public to written addresses only,” Boonstra wrote in the decision issued Tuesday. “That issue was not before the court, as neither the (House Judiciary Committee ) nor the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed only written communication from the public at its meetings.”
Boonstra said the record shows the public was permitted to address the committees orally but was also able to submit written statements or both. That includes “speaking” through testimony cards that indicate a person’s or groups’ stance on legislation, which can also indicate whether the person wished to speak or not.
Boonstra said at no time were members of the public limited to submitting written testimony only during those meetings. The case record shows the respective leaders or spokespeople for either group were permitted to speak in a subsequent meeting after at first being denied. The appeal did not address whether the Senate’s committee satisfied the OMA by setting rules on participation, nor did the groups challenge the committee’s right under OMA to promulgate those rules.
Boonstra also noted the appeal did not directly challenge the laws in an effort to undo them, and disagreed with the groups’ “grim portent that this holding will enable all public bodies across the state to dispense with public comment altogether.”
“A public body’s rules regarding the acceptance of written communications and limitation of oral communications should, if challenged, be reviewed in the manner of any other challenge under the OMA,” Boonstra wrote. “We merely decline (the groups’) request to interpret (the OMA) in a manner that would, in all circumstances, preclude the acceptance of written communications in lieu of (public
comment), or that at least would preclude a court from considering that acceptance when analyzing a challenge to a public body under the OMA.”
Gongwer News Service
Public bodies can accept written testimony in lieu of public comment under the Open Meetings Act, the Court of Appeals ruled in a unanimous decision issued Tuesday.
The ruling came in an appeal from gun rights group that challenged a Court of Claims decision to dismiss their lawsuit against the Legislature in an OMA spat over committee testimony in 2023.
In a published opinion written by Judge Mark Boonstra, the panel in Michigan Open Carry v. House of Representatives (COA Docket No. 368942) affirmed the Court of Claims’ holding that the House violated the OMA, but also that it correctly dismissed the case. Judge Anica Letica and Judge Michelle Rick joined the opinion.
The panel also found that the lower court’s interpretation of the OMA was sound and that the groups misinterpreted the holding to say that a public body complies with the OMA by accepting written communication only – which was at the heart of the appeal.
Both Michigan Open Carry and Great Lakes Gun Rights denounced the ruling in separate statements, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent.
“The Legislature tried to muzzle gun owners, and now the courts are backing them up. This isn’t just about meetings – it’s about our right to stand up and say ‘no’ to gun control in person, not just on some ignored scrap of paper,” Casey Armitage, president of Michigan Open Carry, said. “This decision emboldens every anti-gun politician to shut out the people they’re supposed to serve.”
Brenden Boudreau, executive director of Great Lakes Gun Rights, said the decision was a “gut punch to every Michigan gun owner who refuses to bow to Lansing’s anti-gun tyranny.”
“The Court of Appeals just handed politicians a free pass to gag us while they plot to strip away our Second Amendment rights,” Boudreau said in a statement. “Written notes don’t cut it when they’re ramming through laws to disarm us – this ruling lets them hide behind paper while we lose our voice and our freedom.”
The dispute stemmed from committee meetings held by the House and Senate in 2023 regarding firearms legislation. Open Carry Michigan and Great Lake Gun Rights sued the chambers alleging OMA violations because some members of the groups were unable to testify against two pending 11-bill packages mostly dealing with gun control and safety.
Judge James Redford ruled the Senate was not in violation of the OMA during those meetings, but the House was because it didn’t have specific rules regarding public participation.
Still, Redford dismissed the lawsuit because the gun rights groups failed to show the House would violate the OMA in the same way again.
The groups appealed but did so specifically challenging a misinterpretation in Redford’s ruling.
“Contrary to (the group’s) characterization, the trial court did not decide that a public body complies with the OMA if it limits the public to written addresses only,” Boonstra wrote in the decision issued Tuesday. “That issue was not before the court, as neither the (House Judiciary Committee ) nor the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed only written communication from the public at its meetings.”
Boonstra said the record shows the public was permitted to address the committees orally but was also able to submit written statements or both. That includes “speaking” through testimony cards that indicate a person’s or groups’ stance on legislation, which can also indicate whether the person wished to speak or not.
Boonstra said at no time were members of the public limited to submitting written testimony only during those meetings. The case record shows the respective leaders or spokespeople for either group were permitted to speak in a subsequent meeting after at first being denied. The appeal did not address whether the Senate’s committee satisfied the OMA by setting rules on participation, nor did the groups challenge the committee’s right under OMA to promulgate those rules.
Boonstra also noted the appeal did not directly challenge the laws in an effort to undo them, and disagreed with the groups’ “grim portent that this holding will enable all public bodies across the state to dispense with public comment altogether.”
“A public body’s rules regarding the acceptance of written communications and limitation of oral communications should, if challenged, be reviewed in the manner of any other challenge under the OMA,” Boonstra wrote. “We merely decline (the groups’) request to interpret (the OMA) in a manner that would, in all circumstances, preclude the acceptance of written communications in lieu of (public
comment), or that at least would preclude a court from considering that acceptance when analyzing a challenge to a public body under the OMA.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
