Gordon v. City of Hamtramck, 2:23-cv-12812

Plaintiffs Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, former Human Relations Commission (HRC) members in Hamtramck, Michigan, challenged city actions concerning flag displays on city-owned flagpoles along Joseph Campau Avenue.
Historically, HRC accepted suggestions for flags to be flown, including those of various countries and, in some instances, non-sovereign and affinity flags.
In 2021, the Hamtramck City Council explicitly authorized a Pride flag for June, but after a change in city leadership, the Council passed a new 2023 resolution (2023-82) prohibiting non-governmental, affinity, and group flags (including Pride flags) on city property.
Plaintiffs raised a Pride flag in defiance of the new resolution, resulting in removal by police and subsequent termination of their HRC positions, as well as transfer of flagpole control from HRC to the City Council.
Plaintiffs sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking summary judgment on claims the flag ban violated free speech, the Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment – Free Speech	Resolution 2023-82 imposes impermissible content/viewpoint limits.	Flagpoles are now a venue for government speech, not public speech.	No summary judgment for plaintiffs; city can close forum.
First Amendment – Establishment Clause	Ban was motivated by religiously based animus against LGBT rights.	City’s stated justification is secular; subjective motives irrelevant.	Plaintiffs’ evidence of motive is irrelevant; law facially neutral.
Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection	Selective enforcement & discriminatory effect in removing plaintiffs.	No evidence plaintiffs are part of a protected group or unequal treatment.	Plaintiffs failed to show selective enforcement or group discrimination.
Validity of New Regulations/Procedural	City cannot close forum after opening; resolutions nullify rights.	Government can restructure forum usage and limit HRC authority.	City’s action to control flagpoles constitutionally permissible.

Shurtleff v. City of Bos., 596 U.S. 243 (2022) (government can convert previously open forum for flag displays to government speech by enacting controlling policies)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech doctrine allows discretion over government property use)
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Loc. Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (state not required to perpetually maintain open forum for public speech)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) (flags as expressive conduct protected by First Amendment, but subject to context and forum limitations)
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (2015) (license plate messages as government speech exempt from First Amendment limits)
West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (flag and flag salute as foundational First Amendment expression)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (legislative motive typically irrelevant to constitutional validity of law)