Appeals court has a chance to define Black Lives Matter
Is the ever-expanding Black Lives Matter movement a political organization similar to the Democratic and Republican parties, or an advocacy group like the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the Fraternal Order of Police?
That’s the question the 7th District Court of Appeals in Youngstown would confront if it agrees to hear an appeal of a contempt of court citation against Youngstown Atty. Andrea Burton.
The citation was issued Friday by Youngstown Municipal Court Judge Robert Milich after Atty. Burton refused to abide by his order that she remove a Black Lives Matter button from her lapel when her case was called. The judge had met with the lawyer in his chambers to tell her she would not be permitted to wear the button in his courtroom.
In citing her for contempt, Milich sentenced her to five days in jail. She was handcuffed by the bailiff and taken to city jail to be transported to the Mahoning County jail.
Burton’s lawyers, J. Gerald Ingram and Desirae Dipero, sought a stay of the sentence, but Judge Milich refused and told them to take the case to the appeals court.
“I have to follow the law,” the municipal court judge told Vindicator Reporter Joe Gorman.
Milich is basing his opinion on a decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a ruling by Maine Superior Court Justice Thomas E. Delahanty against Maine lawyer Seth Berner.
Berner had appeared before Justice Delahanty wearing a button that read, “No on 1 – Maine Won’t Discriminate.”
Delahanty ordered Berner to remove the button, and while he complied he argued that his free-speech rights were being violated.
He subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court, which rejected his free-speech arguments.
According to an internet post by the First Amendment Center, the appeals court determined that the judge’s prohibition of political buttons was a reasonable method of “maintaining proper order and decorum” in a courtroom, which is not a public forum.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal filed by Berner, thereby upholding the circuit court’s decision.
“By their nature, courtrooms demand intense concentration on important matters,” the 1st U.S. Circuit wrote. “Whether or not disruptive, buttons that display political messages are at the very least distracting.”
But, there is a vast difference between a button that actually advocates defeat of statewide referendum and a button that simply says “Black Lives Matter.”
QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS
The 7th District Court of Appeals has been given the opportunity to provide answers to the following questions:
What is a political movement?
What is a political issue?
What free-speech rights, if any, do lawyers have when they appear in court?
Is there a difference between the advocacy of Black Lives Matter and any other groups that have an interest in influencing and even changing public policy?
George Freeman, head of the NAACP Youngstown branch, raised another issue with regard to Judge Milich’s action against Atty. Burton:
“We thought the judge was overstepping his authority by arresting an attorney for simply letting the world know that she is in favor of the Black Lives movement.”
We are well aware that judges are virtual dictators when it comes to the management and operation of their courtrooms.
A federal judge in Cleveland had a repu- tation for being a stickler for courtroom decorum. He was famous for publicly berating lawyers who were unkempt. He had a strict dress code and did not accept any excuses.
But what Youngstown Judge Milich did Friday with regard to having Atty. Burton taken out of court in handcuffs seems to us beyond the pale.
We know that the criminal justice system is on tinter hooks given the violence that has been visited upon police by blacks angry over the killing of black men by law enforcement officials.
Many cities are on edge, and judges are being called upon to arbitrate the growing social unrest in this country.
However, the action taken by Milich against Burton simply serves to confirm the belief of many blacks in this country that the criminal justice system is biased against them.
Legal clarity from the 7th District Court of Appeals would be timely and necessary.