When First Amendment Rights and Public Meetings Clash

Most governing bodies want to ensure their public meetings are not disrupted by threatening, irrelevant, or overlong commentary. At the same time, these bodies must avoid violating the rights of community members who wish to comment.

What authority does a governing body have to develop and enforce procedures that can prevent the interruption or derailing of public meetings? This blog will review considerations and options.

The First Amendment and Limited Public Forums

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection to and opportunity for free speech in public forums, and the public meeting of a governing body (e.g., county board, city council) is considered a “limited public forum.”

In a limited public forum, a governing body can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech as well as speech content but only insofar as these regulations are viewpoint-neutral (i.e., not imposed because the body disagrees with the speaker’s position on a topic) and reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose. See Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (2010).

Governing bodies regulate speech in public meetings by adopting rules of procedure (or rules of conduct), but it can be a challenge to develop rules that are both enforceable and do not violate First Amendment rights of individuals.

For guidance, local governments can turn to the courts. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa (2013), where it ruled a person’s speech must fully disrupt a public meeting (in this case, the Costa Mesa City Council) before the person responsible for the disruption could be removed from the site.

The Acosta court found the language used in the Costa Mesa City Council’s rules of procedure (reproduced below) did not violate First Amendment protections:

It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a council meeting to do any of the following ... (1) Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.

The Acosta court also ruled those same prohibitions apply to disorderly conduct from members of the governing body, stating

[M]embers of the council shall not, by disorderly, insolent, or disturbing action, speech, or otherwise, substantially delay, interrupt or disturb the proceedings of the council.”

In a 2008 case heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Comm’n (2008), a private citizen, Steinburg, claimed the Planning Commission of Chesterfield County (VA) had violated his First Amendment right to free speech when he was escorted out of a commission meeting after he refused to limit his comments to items on the agenda and engaged in personal attacks on commissioners, both of which were in violation of the commission’s adopted rules of procedure.

The Steinburg court ruled against him, noting the commission meeting was a limited public forum that could be managed by the government entity and that argumentative or disruptive behavior in the meeting was not shielded by First Amendment protections. The court stated:

Officials presiding over such meetings must have discretion (…) to cut off speech which they reasonably perceive to be, or imminently to threaten, a disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the discussion, whether by virtue of its irrelevance, its duration, or its very tone and manner.

Rules of Procedure for Governing Bodies

Governing bodies are authorized by statute to adopt formal rules of procedure that govern the conduct of their meetings. Statutes applying to city/town councils include

• RCW 35A.12.120 for non-charter code cities;
• RCW 35.23.270 for second-class cities; and
• RCW 35.27.280 for towns.

First-class cities are authorized to adopt rules of procedure by their city charters.

While county councils/boards do not have a similar statute, that authority is necessarily implied from the council's/board's authority (and requirement) to hold meetings and conduct business.

MRSC offers samples from cities, counties, and a few special purpose districts on our Rules of Procedure for Local Governing Bodies webpage and in our Sample Document Library.

What About Virtual Meetings?

Regardless of how a public meeting is held—whether it be in person, fully remote, or a combination of the two, the same rules of procedure apply.

In ruling on whether a provision of the disorderly conduct statute (RCW 9A.84.030(1)(b)) is unconstitutionally overbroad and infringes on protected speech, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division 3 in State v. Patterson (2016) noted: "A person generally has a free speech right to make his or her views known, but the rubric of free speech does not include the intent to substantially interfere with a meeting."

Keeping the Meeting on Track

Most local governments that have adopted rules of procedure for their public meetings make these publicly available (For example, see Bellingham’s Guide to City Council Meetings webpage)

During a public meeting of the governing body, the meeting chair can also explain the rules and warn that anyone who disrupts the meeting will be asked to leave or, in the case of online participants, disconnected.

What happens if a speaker does not follow the rules of conduct and their actions are such that it significantly disrupts the meeting and the governing body cannot move forward?

If a speaker’s action rise to this level, the speaker may be ordered to leave or may be removed from the meeting. RCW 42.30.050 allows the majority of the members of a governing body to clear the room and adjourn/reconvene a public meeting if resuming the meeting is unfeasible.

If the meeting room has to be cleared, members of the governing body may re-admit all attendees not responsible for the disruption. Any news media representatives present must be re-admitted unless they were part of the disturbance.

Conclusion and Resources

Many local governments have adopted formal rules of procedure to govern the conduct of their meetings, and as long as these take into account First Amendment protections of individuals, such rules may help to increase meeting efficiency and help manage or reduce conflict. A well-organized and well-managed meeting does not necessarily guarantee good results, but it certainly helps.

Below are additional blogs broadly addressing First Amendment issues:

• Written on the Subway Walls: Is Graffiti Free Speech or Property Damage? (2026)
• The Right to Assemble: Responding to Protests, Spontaneous Gatherings, and Counterdemonstrations (2025)
• Not What You Were Expecting To Hear: More Strategies for Handling Hate Speech During Public Comment (2024)
• Social Media and Public Agencies: Strategies to Harness Communication Potential and Avoid Legal Challenges (2024)
• Rights and Limits on Filming in Public Facilities (2023)
• Speaking Versus Regulating—The Government Speech Doctrine (2022)