On July 15, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision authored by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez and joined by Judges Edith Brown Clement and Dana Douglas, ruled that a City Council public comment policy in Bossier City, Louisiana, is unconstitutional. The policy barred individuals from making "personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks" during council meetings and allowed the council to bar speakers who violated this rule unless a majority voted to permit continued comments.

The court found the policy to be overly broad, noting that the terms "personal" and "remark" encompass a wide range of protected speech. For example, the policy could prohibit speakers from using a councilmember's name, mentioning potential conflicts of interest, alleging misconduct, or highlighting legal actions involving council members—all of which are relevant public concerns.

The ruling emphasized a "bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment" that the government cannot prohibit expression simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. The court agreed with previous rulings, including those by the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, which held similar restrictions to be unconstitutional due to their chilling effect on free speech, especially regarding criticism of public officials.

The court also referenced the landmark Sullivan (1964) decision, which protects statements about public officials unless made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The Bossier City ordinance failed to distinguish between constitutionally protected and unprotected speech, leading to substantial uncertainty about what speakers could lawfully say.

As a result, the policy was struck down, reinforcing the constitutional right to robust public discourse at government meetings.

Sources