Rochester’s legal team has formally objected to a recommendation from a federal magistrate that could allow a new claim of First Amendment violation to proceed in the lawsuit filed by former City Council member Molly Dennis. The objection, submitted on February 5, 2025, by attorney Farah Famouri of the Minneapolis-based Greene Espel law firm, contests the assertion that a retaliation claim should be allowed to advance.
This objection aligns with a recommendation from U.S. Federal Court Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko, who suggested that one of several proposed amendments to Dennis’ lawsuit could be considered. Dennis initially filed her lawsuit in 2024, claiming that her censure in March 2023 and subsequent actions violated her rights under state and federal laws, particularly concerning her diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
In early 2025, a recommendation to dismiss several of her claims was accepted, prompting Dennis to update her complaint after hiring Ostrow Law to represent her. While Micko suggested dismissing most revisions, he indicated that the potential for a new allegation regarding Dennis’ expulsions from City Council meetings warranted further examination.
Dennis faced ejections from three council meetings during her last year in office, following her censure. These incidents occurred on May 20, 2024, October 7, 2024, and December 2, 2024. The city’s legal team argues that Dennis’ revised complaint does not adequately demonstrate a link between her expulsions and her First Amendment rights.
The objection states, “She does not allege when she was expelled, the context around the expulsions, or any facts that might suggest a connection to her allegedly protected speech versus some other conduct.”
While Micko acknowledged that his recommendation does not imply that Dennis’ claims would be substantiated by evidence, the city argues that he failed to recognize significant gaps in the allegations. The objection emphasizes that expulsions from meetings are a standard practice for managing disorderly conduct among elected officials.
Both the United States and Minnesota constitutions grant legislative bodies the authority to “punish [their] Members for disorderly behaviour, and … expel a member.” The city’s legal team further contends that the time lapse between Dennis’ earlier statements in 2021 and 2023 and the subsequent expulsions is too extensive to substantiate a causal relationship.
This is not the first instance of the city’s attorneys objecting to recommendations made by Judge Micko. Previously, they contested his suggestion that three of Dennis’ original nine complaints should proceed. Ultimately, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz approved the recommendation, and the case is now set for a jury trial in 2027.
As developments unfold, the legal battle between the former council member and the city of Rochester continues to draw attention, highlighting the complexities of governance and individual rights within municipal operations.
