Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu, proceeding without a lawyer, sought injunctive relief based on restrictions he said prevented him from testifying at two online New York City Council meetings held on December 14 and 16, 2020. The court treated his request as a motion for a preliminary injunction aimed at preventing the City of New York from imposing future restrictions on his ability to testify at public hearings. He also asked the court to void the two meetings under New York’s Open Meetings Law.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, City Council meetings were conducted online through Zoom. Members of the public could watch live or view recordings. At meetings that included public comment, people who wanted to testify could obtain a meeting link after completing a registration form identifying the subject of their testimony.

For the December 14 meeting, Komatsu entered “tell you later” in the required subject-of-testimony field and was not given a link allowing him to testify. The court assumed for purposes of the motion that the City denied his registration because he did not disclose the subject, rather than for another technical reason. For the December 16 meeting, Komatsu properly registered, but the City turned off his camera and changed his status to “attendee” after he raised his middle finger at Council members. The change gave meeting organizers control over whether he could speak.

Preliminary-injunction standard

A preliminary injunction is an order issued before the case ends to prevent or require conduct while the litigation continues. The court said Komatsu had to show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. Because he sought to stop government action and alter the existing situation, the court applied the more demanding requirement that he show a substantial likelihood of success.

First Amendment claim

The parties agreed that the City Council meetings were limited public forums. In such forums, the government may limit speech to certain speakers or subjects, but restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral when they concern matters outside the forum’s designated purpose.

The court held that Komatsu was unlikely to succeed regarding the December 14 meeting. It was reasonable for the City to require participants to identify their testimony subjects so the City could determine whether the testimony fit the meeting’s designated subject or subjects. The requirement was viewpoint neutral because it asked only for the subject of the testimony, not the speaker’s viewpoint. The court also noted that Komatsu did not provide a different response identifying his anticipated subject. The City therefore was not required to let him testify.

The court also held that Komatsu was unlikely to succeed regarding the December 16 meeting. It described preventing testimony by someone who disrupted or interrupted a public meeting as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on speech in a limited public forum. The court found that turning off Komatsu’s camera and limiting his ability to unmute his microphone was a reasonable measure to prevent further disruption after his obscene gesture. It did not find viewpoint discrimination. The City had a significant interest in conducting meetings orderly, and the restriction did not eliminate other ways for Komatsu to communicate his views or impose a blanket ban on future testimony if he complied with meeting rules.

Selective-enforcement claim

Komatsu also claimed that the City treated him differently from similarly situated people because of protected expression, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that such a claim requires showing both different treatment from people whose conduct was comparably serious and an impermissible reason for that treatment.

The court rejected Komatsu’s comparison to a June 2020 hearing where members of the public, including Komatsu, used vulgar language. Komatsu had been allowed to testify at that hearing, and the court noted that his remarks occurred during his allotted speaking time. He did not identify people at the December 16 meeting who made comparable obscene gestures outside their speaking turns or unrelated to the meeting topic, were allowed to continue similar conduct, or had been accused of similar disruptive conduct on several earlier occasions. The court therefore found that he had not shown treatment different from that of similarly situated people.

New York Open Meetings Law claim

Komatsu asked the court to declare the two meetings void under New York Open Meetings Law § 107. The court stated that a meeting may be voided only when the public body failed to comply with the law and the plaintiff shows good cause. For videoconference meetings, the law generally requires an opportunity for the public to attend, listen, and observe, but does not generally require public testimony unless another law requires it. The court found that these committee meetings were not meetings at which testimony was legally required and therefore found no violation of the Open Meetings Law.

Ruling

Because Komatsu had not shown a likelihood of success on his constitutional claims or a violation of the Open Meetings Law, the court also found that he had not shown irreparable harm. Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Komatsu’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail the order to Komatsu. The court also denied Komatsu’s requests for additional reply pages and permission to seek another injunction.