Evanston’s elected officials and city manager issued a statement Monday afternoon pledging to “explore legal options” to protect the community from antisemitic speech like that heard at last Thursday’s special city council meeting.
Related: Comment cut short as antisemites spew
But the statement acknowledges that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state’s Open Meetings Act “impose serious constraints on what we can do about this.”
The state attorney general’s office, in a case involving Evanston Township High School, has upheld a time limit on public comment, like the one used Thursday to cut off comments after 45 minutes.
But in a case from Urbana, the same office said that without evidence of disruption, a public body cannot prohibit expression of opinions or criticism of public officials during public comment.
In that instance the persons whose comments were cut off had been speaking calmly as they criticized the performance of city officials by name, including administrator Carol Mitten, who later was an unsuccessful candidate to become Evanston’s city manager.
The antisemitic speakers last Thursday generally remained calm as they delivered their offensive remarks.
A federal appeals court case from California concluded that the First Amendment requires that a person’s speech in a city council meeting must actually disrupt a meeting before the person may be removed.
In Rochester, Minnesota, the city council has limited speakers to making public comments just once a month, a move that apparently has not faced legal challenge.
Evanston’s council rules were changed in 2022 to specify that “residents” have the right to comment at meetings. Previously the rules had given that right to “citizens.”
Either way, the Council has in practice not restricted comments to people who live in Evanston or who are U.S. citizens.
The city’s statement today says that the city officials “have no reason to believe that any of the individuals” who made the antisemitic remarks last Thursday “are Evanston residents.
But the statement does not mention limiting public comment to residents as a strategy for addressing the issue.
And given that the attorney general has ruled that a public body may not require speakers to disclose their addresses as a condition to participating in public comment, that may not be a viable option either.
At least for special meetings, the attorney general’s office has said a public body can limit comments “to topics germane to the agenda.”
The Lake County Board imposes special restrictions on comment about issues not on a meeting’s agenda, letting the parliamentarian decide whether they will be heard.