The 6th Circuit held a valid ordinance can still support a First Amendment retaliation claim when enforcement appears motivated by political speech. In Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, unusual enforcement against a vocal critic of the mayor kept claims against the mayor and his chief of staff alive. Police officers and supervisors should take special care to enforce the law impartially, especially during election season.
Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, 2026 WL 2949463 (6th Cir. 2026)
Election season can present some uncomfortable requests for police enforcement, particularly when political disagreements come into play. Officers may feel “caught between the dog and the fire hydrant” when calls for service involve their critics, elected officials (who are often the officers’ bosses!), or both. Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland reminds us that even a perfectly valid ordinance can create First Amendment problems when enforcement appears to be motivated by a citizen’s political speech.
William Fambrough was a vocal critic of East Cleveland’s mayor, Brandon King. In an upcoming election, Fambrough put his support behind the mayor’s opponent, City Councilor Juanita Gowdy. Fambrough’s preferred campaign tool was a truck equipped with loudspeakers that broadcast political messages as he drove through the city. City officials responded by enforcing parking and noise ordinances, citing Fambrough, impounding his truck, and even prosecuting a noise violation.
“An officer may have an objectively lawful basis to enforce an ordinance, yet the surrounding circumstances may support a separate claim that enforcement was undertaken in retaliation for protected speech.”
The circumstances surrounding the enforcement were unusual. The city’s parking ordinance had apparently resulted in only four citations since 2018. Scott Gardner, the city’s chief of police, was sufficiently concerned about selectively enforcing the ordinance against Fambrough that he consulted the city’s lawyers. Meanwhile, Michael Smedley, the mayor’s chief of staff, repeatedly contacted the police chief about Fambrough’s activities, and officers were specifically directed to watch for the sound truck. The police department devoted an unusual amount of attention to what ordinarily would’ve been relatively minor violations.
Fambrough sued, alleging city officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the 6th Circuit panel concluded the lower court had improperly dismissed his retaliation claims against the mayor and his chief of staff. However, it affirmed qualified immunity for Chief Gardner.
The court’s discussion illustrates an important point. An officer may have an objectively lawful basis to enforce an ordinance, yet the surrounding circumstances may support a separate claim that enforcement was undertaken in retaliation for protected speech. Under Nieves v. Bartlett (587 U.S. 391 (2019)), probable cause usually beats a retaliatory arrest claim, but an exception may apply when officers typically exercise their discretion not to enforce the law against similarly situated people who are not engaged in protected speech. Thus, the unusually infrequent enforcement of East Cleveland’s parking ordinance was significant to the court’s retaliation analysis.
The court also rejected Fambrough’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the impound. The department had sufficiently standardized procedures governing vehicle impounds (score one for good policies!), and the seizure served a legitimate community-caretaking purpose. The policy did not need to eliminate every element of officer discretion.
For officers and administrators, the lesson is especially relevant during election season. Officers must enforce the law impartially, regardless of a person’s political opinions or which candidate that person supports. A complaint from an elected official deserves appropriate consideration, but it should not receive preferential enforcement treatment merely because of the official’s position or disagreement with the speaker.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
The chief’s decision to seek legal guidance about possible selective enforcement was smart. When officers are asked to enforce an obscure or rarely enforced ordinance against a vocal political critic, supervisors should carefully consider the department’s ordinary enforcement practices, the current circumstances, and whether the same action would be taken against someone expressing different political views.
The practical lesson is simple: The First Amendment does not exempt political activists from otherwise valid laws, but neither may government officials use those laws to punish protected political expression. During election season, police officers serve the law and the public — not a candidate, a political party, or an elected official.
- Blog Articles
