Germantown considers repealing decorations ordinance after lawsuit
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Nearly a month after a woman filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Germantown over its holiday decorations ordinance, city leaders are considering repealing it.
Alexis Luttrell claimed her First Amendment rights were violated when she was asked to remove skeleton decorations she used for Halloween and Christmas.
Woman sues Germantown over skeleton Christmas decorations
Luttrell was told the decorations violated a Germantown ordinance that prohibits residents from placing holiday and seasonal decorations on their property more than 45 days before or 30 days after the intended holiday.
Monday, the Board of Mayor and Alderman will have the first reading of a resolution to repeal Division 2, Section 11-33 – Holiday/seasonal/special Events decorations. They will also set a public hearing date for the issue.
Luttrell is not commenting on the action or its potential impact on her lawsuit.
Germantown resident summoned to court over holiday decor
Luttrell told WREG she purchased a skeleton and a dog skeleton for yard displays throughout the year.
Her suit claims Germantown is dictating how residents celebrate holidays and its decorations ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.
'I want to protect not only my First Amendment rights but those of my community,' said Luttrell. 'It shouldn't be left up to Germantown whether my holiday decor matches their personal taste or preference.'
Luttrell said she wanted the court to declare Germantown violated her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and wants the city's holiday ordinance thrown out entirely.
The Germantown Board of Aldermen will meet at 6 p.m. on Monday at City Hall.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 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
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Republican Flames Musk for Pushing GOP ‘Off the Cliff'
Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon blamed billionaire Elon Musk for bankrolling the Republican party to a point of no return amid the former 'First Buddy's' very public spat with President Donald Trump. Bacon—who has publicly opposed Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, tariffs, Signalgate, and cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—told the New York Times he refuses to follow his party 'off the cliff' and into oblivion. Bacon pointed the finger at Musk for using his money to muscle his way into politics, saying the Tesla CEO used his financial hold over Republicans to tank a bipartisan spending bill that would have averted a government shutdown in December. 'I sort of blame him for that disaster,' Bacon, 61, said. Bacon was the sole House Republican to vote 'no' on renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, he did vote 'yes' to shuffle Trump's 'big beautiful bill' to its next phase. Upon voting, Bacon announced that the bill, though 'not perfect,' 'delivers for Nebraskans.' 'I don't like voting 'no,'' Bacon said. 'I like fixing things.' He added that he does what Trump 'has done' at the Southern Border. 'I have no problem with that,' he said. With Musk on the outs with Trump, Bacon said it's an opportunity to 'fight for the soul of our party,' 'I don't want to be the guy who follows the flute player off the cliff. I think that's what's going on right now,' Bacon said, comparing his numerous breaks from party lines to Winston Churchill condemning Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Bacon added, 'Winston Churchill, who is one of my heroes, he was very unpopular 1932 through '40 because he was anti-Nazi. But in 1940, they go, 'Who was the only guy that knew what was going on?'' Shooting down any talk of campaigning to take the top job for himself as president, Bacon instead put the buzz out that he'd like to go into intelligence. 'If I had a perfect lane, someday I'd love to work in an administration as director of intelligence or secretary of Defense or Air Force,' he said. He added, 'I'd rather go down in history as being on the right side of this stuff.' The Daily Beast has reached out to Elon Musk for comment on Bacon's remarks.
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.
