Federal Court Upholds Hammerlock's all-Muslim City Council Flag Ban

Judge Clears Path for Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging City’s Restrictions as Leaders Declare Legal Victory

A federal court in Detroit ruled on July 15, 2025, that the city of Hamtramck’s policy prohibiting the display of LGBTQ+ Pride flags and other symbolic flags on public property is constitutional, rejecting claims of discrimination and free speech violations and setting the stage for dismissal of a high-profile lawsuit that has stirred controversy and debate in this diverse Michigan city.

Court Affirms City’s Right to Control Flag Displays

In his decision, U.S. District Judge David Lawson determined that Hamtramck’s 2023 ordinance governing flag displays on municipal property is neutral and does not violate First Amendment free speech protections. The judge stated that municipal flagpoles are platforms for government speech, not public forums for individual expression, allowing city governments to regulate which flags may be displayed, provided the rules are not designed to suppress particular viewpoints.

“There is no legal or factual basis to support such allegations,” Judge Lawson wrote, adding that the city’s policy was constitutional and consistent with the government speech doctrine.

Lawson’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by two former members of the Hamtramck Human Relations Commission, Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, who argued that the flag policy unlawfully silenced LGBTQ+ voices while reflecting discriminatory intent by Hamtramck’s all-Muslim City Council, which unanimously adopted the flag ban last year.

Key Provisions of Hamtramck’s Controversial Policy

The city’s ordinance, passed in June 2023, restricts the display of flags on city property to five categories: the American flag, the Michigan state flag, the city flag, the POW/MIA flag, and flags representing the national origins of Hamtramck’s residents. Political, ethnic, religious, and other special-interest flags—including the LGBTQ+ Pride flag—are explicitly barred from municipal flagpoles.

Publicly, city leaders described the measure as a means of maintaining political neutrality and preventing social division in a community of roughly 27,000, where Yemeni and Bangladeshi Muslims now form the majority population. Privately, critics and plaintiffs alleged that the policy’s impetus, though broadly framed, was pressure from religious groups who viewed the Pride flag as antithetical to their beliefs.

The lawsuit argued, “It is unconstitutional for government to select what speech will be permitted, and what speech will be prohibited, based on the content or viewpoint of the message conveyed.” Plaintiffs also contended that allowing the display of the POW flag and international flags showed the law was not truly neutral.

Judge Rejects Claims of Anti-LGBTQ+ Bias and Religious Motive

Judge Lawson rejected arguments that the city’s policy discriminated against LGBTQ+ residents or was motivated by religious animus:

“Legislative intent is irrelevant to constitutional validity. The courts consider outcomes, not individual motives,” he wrote.
He further found that the flag policy was neither targeted nor religiously motivated, but instead represented a legitimate exercise in defining the scope of government communication.

The judge also dismissed claims that the ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, finding the legal challenge insufficiently substantiated at this stage. He expressly addressed opponents’ concerns that council members’ public condemnations of homosexuality tainted the measure: “There is no legal or factual basis to support such allegations.”

An All-Muslim City Council and Shifting Social Fabric

Hamtramck made history in 2021 by electing the nation’s first all-Muslim city council, reflecting the changing demographics of the area after decades as a Polish-Catholic enclave. Although the flag dispute centers on the government process, some observers see it as a flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle to balance religious, cultural, and LGBTQ+ rights. The flag policy has attracted national scrutiny, with supporters arguing for local self-determination and critics decrying what they see as the weaponization of government neutrality against vulnerable minorities.

A “Great Victory”

The court’s decision was met with celebration by Hamtramck’s Mayor Amer Ghalib, who called the ruling a “complete victory” for the city and its all-Muslim council. In a post on Facebook, Ghalib declared:

“In the case where the deep state stood with all its weight against the mayor and City Council — today they lost. Time has proven your mayor stood on the right side of history, under a government ruled by law and justice. We will prevail in other cases as well, against the lies, deceit and manufactured crises stirred up by powerful interests within and outside the city. Trust your leadership and don’t fall for false media narratives that aim to tarnish the real progress we’ve made.”

Odey Meroueh, a Dearborn-based attorney representing Hamtramck, likewise hailed the outcome, stating that his clients “welcome the court’s decision” and that the ruling affirms the city’s authority to craft policies reflective of its community’s values.

The Legal Challenge and Human Impact

The lawsuit at the heart of this controversy was brought by attorney Marc M. Susselman on behalf of the fired commission members, who raised the rainbow Pride flag on a city flagpole in open defiance of the new law. They contended that their removal from the volunteer commission itself constituted a violation of their free speech and due process rights, and that the ban was unevenly applied, as it excluded ethnic and religious banners but allowed the display of some exceptions, which plaintiffs claimed undermined the city’s claims of neutrality.

Supporters of the plaintiffs, including local LGBTQ+ activists, say they fear escalating exclusion and silencing of marginalized groups. They point to the real-world effects felt by LGBTQ+ residents, some of whom express concern that council policy—and its legal vindication—may embolden discrimination in public life.

Government Speech Versus Public Forum

The crux of Judge Lawson’s decision rested on the legal doctrine distinguishing “government speech” from private speech. Under Supreme Court precedent, the government is permitted to select and control its own messages on public property, provided that those choices are not made with the intention of discriminating against specific viewpoints or groups. Courts routinely give deference to government curatorship of official speech, as opposed to bona fide “public forums” (such as open-air parks), where free expression is broadly protected.

Lawson concluded that Hamtramck’s municipal flagpoles constitute such a platform for government speech, not a platform for residents’ diverse viewpoints. Invoking concerns about future disputes and division, he wrote that “allowing flags representing different identities or political causes could lead to endless disputes and conflicting demands from various groups.”

Broader Implications

Hamtramck’s policy and the federal court’s ruling have already generated intense debate over what constitutes neutrality, inclusion, and community standards in multicultural settings. Supporters of the ordinance argue that it prevents city institutions from elevating one political cause over another and relieves city officials from adjudicating divisive debates about which identities or causes merit official recognition.

Opponents contend that, regardless of legal vindication, the policy’s real effect is to exclude vulnerable minorities from civic affirmation, raising concerns about the long-term impact on LGBTQ+ youth and others who have historically relied on visible symbols of government support.

Lawsuit Faces Dismissal, National Debate Persists

With the court affirming the constitutionality of Hamtramck’s ordinance, the path is now clear for dismissal of the lawsuit unless new legal grounds emerge. Still, the judge’s ruling is unlikely to quell the broader debate both within Hamtramck and nationally, where issues of LGBTQ+ inclusion, religious identity, and the scope of government neutrality remain fiercely contested.

What happens next will depend in part on the actions of the plaintiffs, who may potentially appeal the ruling or seek alternative avenues for advocating civic inclusion. For Hamtramck, the case is both a legal marker and a cultural milestone, reflecting the city’s evolving identity and the challenges of governance in a changing America.