Town's threats over skeleton lawn decor — with festive twist — have Tennessee woman suing
In a Memphis suburb, a resident is suing local officials, saying they want to force her to take down decorative skeletons she has displayed on her lawn since Halloween. They're trying to take her to city court.
Now, Alexis Luttrell is bringing the issue to federal court.
Luttrell has been adding festive touches to her lawn skeletons at her home in Germantown, incorporating them into various seasonal displays. She dressed them for Election Day, Christmas and most recently redecorated them for Valentine's Day.
She simply likes skeletons, explains a federal lawsuit she filed Feb. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
'But Germantown officials believe that skeletons may only celebrate Halloween,' a complaint says.
City officials have threatened Luttrell with fines and a court order that would legally require her to take down her display, according to the complaint.
They say she's defying Germantown's Holiday Decorations Ordinance, which bans homeowners for displaying decorations more than 45 days before or 30 days past a designated holiday.
But this ban is unconstitutional, because it gives city officials the power to dictate how residents celebrate holidays — and the power to punish those who ignore the ordinance, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Luttrell.
Under the First Amendment, Germantown residents should have a right to decorate their yards and homes for holidays how they choose, according to the complaint.
'The First Amendment protects a wide range of expression, from waving a flag to painting a picture to displaying holiday decorations,' FIRE attorney Colin McDonell told McClatchy News in a statement on Feb. 13.
'Government officials can't impose their own subjective beliefs about what expression appropriately celebrates a particular holiday.'
Germantown spokeswoman Jessica Comas declined McClatchy News' request for comment Feb. 13. She said the city doesn't comment on pending litigation.
'You don't have to like my decorations'
After Luttrell arranged her skeletons in a political display for Election Day, a Germantown code officer visited her home on Dec. 6, leaving a notice that she was violating the city's holiday ordinance, according to the lawsuit. The notice instructed her to take down her skeletons.
Eight other Germantown residents with skeleton decor were issued similar notices, requesting they remove their displays, Cameron Ross, the director of the city's economic and community development, told TODAY.com.
He said five homeowners 'immediately complied.'
After citations were issued to two homeowners, and a court summons was issued to a third, they took down their skeletons, according to Ross, TODAY.com reported.
Instead of taking hers down, Luttrell refreshed her skeletons for Christmas.
She dressed her human skeletal figure in a green and red tutu and placed a garland in its hand, which she affixed to a second figure, a skeletal dog, as a leash. She placed the skeletons in between an inflatable Santa Claus and Christmas tree.
Then, on Jan. 6, Germantown issued her a citation and summoned her to Germantown Municipal Court, according to the complaint.
'The resident in question has claimed the skeletons are Christmas decorations, but the City maintains they are Halloween-themed and fall outside the ordinance's allowances,' Ross told TODAY.com about Luttrell. 'Penalties will ultimately be determined by the City Prosecutor and Judge during the court hearing.'
Luttrell's court date, which was set for Feb. 13, has been pushed back to March 13, McDonnell told McClatchy News.
If Luttrell 'continues incorporating skeletons into non-Halloween holiday decorations, she risks additional citations, fines, and other penalties, including the seizure of her skeletons,' the complaint says.
Luttrell isn't deterred by the threats of legal ramifications.
'You don't have to like my decorations, but that doesn't mean Germantown has the right to force me to take them down,' Luttrell, who holds a law degree, said in a news release issued by FIRE.
Within the next few months, she plans to decorate her skeletons for St. Patrick's Day, Easter and Pride month, according to the complaint.
The complaint says she 'intends to continue incorporating her decorative skeletons into her holiday displays in the coming years.'
Ross told TODAY.com that if Luttrell takes down her skeletons before her court hearing, the only consequence she might face is covering legal fees.
With her lawsuit, Luttrell seeks a court order that declares Germantown's attempts to censor her as unconstitutional, an injunction that prevents officials from enforcing the Holiday Decorations Ordinance as well as other relief.
'Germantown's ordinance targets protected expression based on its message, and that's unconstitutional,' McDonnell said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
On the Record: Federal funding cuts threaten 1/3 of WTVP budget
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — Local PBS affiliate stations like WTVP are sounding the alarm for their future after the Trump administration formally requested Congress to claw back funding for the next two years. WTVP President and CEO Jenn Gordon joined 'On the Record' and said the cuts will have a devastating impact on her station, which has just recovered from a financial situation of its own. 'So we're looking at an impact of about a third of our annual funding being immediately cut, if this rescission package goes through. So a lot is at stake here. More than 1.3 million people have already contacted Congress to voice their support [for public media],' she said. Gordon emphasized that public media differs from commercial media in that it's a private-public partnership. 'We're nonprofit organizations that rely in part on federal support to offer commercial-free programming to everyone. It was set up originally to receive some taxpayer dollars to get the ball rolling, but then also all of our local stations, we do quite a bit of fundraising to supplement that,' said Gordon. That federal funding could disappear in less than two months. The Trump administration, on Tuesday, sent Congress a rescission package, formally requesting the return of $1.1 billion already allocated for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That starts a countdown of 45 days for Congress to respond. If passed, Gordon said local stations like WTVP stand to lose nearly a third of their annual funding. 'This isn't just about national programming,' Gordon warned. 'Smaller stations will feel the cut even more sharply. At WTVP, we'd have to immediately shift into emergency fundraising mode to try to close the gap. It could slow or stop local and educational programming, and delay production for new shows.' The rescission package comes on the heels of another blow to public media. President Trump issued an executive order on May 1 to shut down PBS and NPR, citing bias and irrelevance. Both organizations have filed lawsuits in response, arguing the order is a violation of the First Amendment. Gordon said the ripple effects from the loss of funding will be felt everywhere, from fewer children's programs to potential job impacts at the local level. 'Some of that federal funding goes to actually producing programs. So you're going to see a shortening of production timelines. And then additionally, at the local level, it's going to immediately need us to move into a grassroots fundraising mode to try and make up for that difference,' she said. So, how can you help? Gordon said to call or send a message to your lawmakers voicing your support for public media. You can also visit 'It takes five minutes and could make a real difference,' she said. On June 3, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger echoed Gordon's sentiments in a statement. 'The proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets,' she said. 'Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis. There's nothing more American than PBS, and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.' PBS was created in by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1969 to provide Americans with a non-commercial space for news, educational programming, and inspirational content. There are approximately 350 stations across the country. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
LA police chief: ‘Ready to meet whatever challenges we may face'
LA police chief: 'Ready to meet whatever challenges we may face' LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell says department is 'well prepared' to handle ICE protests; has a 'great working relationship' with the National Guard. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump orders troops to LA as agents, protesters clash over immigration President Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to combat violent protesters opposed to immigration enforcement. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell told USA TODAY his department will be 'well prepared' should any civil unrest occur during the third day of protests across the city. 'We certainly have a heavier deployment than usual,' McDonnell said June 8, declining to give a specific number. The chief said officers will be deployed outside a federal court building, the Metropolitan Detention Center, City Hall, and some parks where protests and demonstrations against deportation raids are scheduled to take place. 'You never know what's going to happen,' McDonnell said. 'We're more heavily deployed to meet whatever challenges we may face.' The chief's comments come as approximately 300 National Guard members arrived in Los Angeles after President Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 officers, a move that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have sharply criticized as inflammatory and unnecessary. Bass added that the presence of the National Guard could cause a 'chaotic escalation.' McDonnell said the LAPD is still figuring out what role the National Guard will play during any protests. 'It's still to be determined,' McDonnell said. 'Some of them just got on the ground, and we're trying to figure out how we can make this all work for everybody. For the city, the county and beyond. Our whole focus is on public safety.' McDonnell said the LAPD has worked very closely with the National Guard for months due to the deadly Palisades fires, adding, 'We have a great working relationship' with them. 'We're both here for the same reason, and that's ultimately to keep everybody safe,' McDonnell said. The determination of which agency will take the lead in handling any unruliness at protests and demonstrations, depends on when and where the unrest occurs, McDonnell said. The chief said there are 44 other law enforcement agencies in L.A. County that assist each other under a mutual aid agreement. 'It depends on where they are and what the circumstances are,' McDonnell said. 'We're responsible for the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is responsible for the county. We work together all the time.' McDonnell said the LAPD will not take part in any immigration enforcement action as prohibited by law under the California Values Act, often referred to as a 'sanctuary law.' But the department will have a presence to quell any civil unrest as protesters exercise their First Amendment rights, the chief said. 'We adapt to the circumstances as they are presented to us,' McDonnell said. 'We're putting ourselves out there on the line every day, and I'm proud of our people and the job that they do on behalf of the community.'
