Michigan Court of Appeals Case Addresses Intersection of a Public Body’s Obligations under the Open Meetings Act and its Disability-Rights Obligations
Public Body Authority Over Meetings and Public Comment Under Michigan Law
Michigan law has long recognized that local public bodies have broad discretion to determine how they will conduct their meetings. Under the Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA), public bodies are required to deliberate and make decisions in meetings that are open to the public, but the statute does not prescribe a single format for how meetings must be run. For example, the OMA requires that members of the public be permitted to address a meeting of a public body, and the OMA expressly permits public bodies to establish reasonable rules and regulations to ensure that meetings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner and to minimize disruption. While deliberation and decision making are the reason for the meeting, the ability of the public to provide comment to the public body is built into the law.
Consistent with this authority, boards, councils, and commissions across Michigan routinely adopt policies governing public comment, including time limits, sign in requirements, and subject matter limitations. These policies are typically upheld so long as they are reasonable, evenly applied, and consistent with statutory requirements. The public body’s discretion, however, is not unlimited. Meeting procedures must also comply with other applicable state laws, including civil right statutes that protect individuals with disabilities.
The Michigan Court of Appeals Weighs In: Blackwell v. City of Inkster
In April 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published decision that significantly clarifies how a public body’s control over its meetings intersects with disability rights obligations. In Blackwell v. City of Inkster, the Court addressed whether a city could limit public comment to in person speakers when doing so effectively excluded a resident with a qualifying disability. The plaintiff, a wheelchair user who could not readily attend council meetings in person, requested permission to submit written public comments in advance so they could be read aloud during meetings. The City initially accommodated the request, but later adopted a policy limiting public comment to in person remarks only. When the City declined to continue reading his comments aloud—even after adopting an alternative process that accepted written comments for inclusion in the meeting record—the plaintiff filed suit under Michigan’s Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s injunction requiring the City to read the plaintiff’s submitted comments aloud during meetings. The Court concluded that the opportunity to provide public comment at a city council meeting is a “public service” within the meaning of the PWDCRA, and that denying a reasonable accommodation deprived the plaintiff of the “full and equal enjoyment” of that service. The burden shifted to the City to prove that reading the Plaintiff’s comments aloud would impose undue hardship, which it ultimately failed to do. While the City argued that its policies complied with the Open Meetings Act and reflected its authority to control meeting procedures, the Court emphasized that compliance with the OMA does not excuse a failure to comply with the PWDCRA.
Reasonable Accommodation Without Fundamental Alteration
A key aspect of the Court’s analysis was its conclusion that the requested accommodation did not fundamentally alter the nature of the City’s meetings or impose an undue hardship. The Court noted that the City had already demonstrated the feasibility of the accommodation by reading the plaintiff’s comments aloud at prior meetings, and it found no evidence that continuing to do so would create administrative, financial, or practical burdens.
Notably, the Court rejected the argument that providing this accommodation amounted to requiring a “virtual” meeting or otherwise conflicted with the Legislature’s preference for in person meetings under the OMA. The injunction did not require remote participation, electronic debate, or any change to how the council conducted its business. Instead, it simply required the City to allow a staff member to read pre submitted comments aloud during the public comment portion of the meeting, subject to the same content neutral rules that applied to all speakers. By harmonizing the OMA and the PWDCRA, the Court made clear that while public bodies retain authority to structure their meetings, that authority must be exercised in a way that provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities when required by law.
Practical Implications for Public Bodies
The Blackwell decision may prompt public bodies across Michigan to revisit their public comment and meeting procedure policies. While it may not require wholesale changes, it does underscore the need for flexibility when a policy effectively excludes individuals with qualifying disabilities. Public bodies may need to consider whether reasonable modifications are necessary to comply with the PWDCRA.
If your municipality has questions about how this decision may affect your meeting procedures or public comment policies, or if you would like assistance reviewing or updating those policies, our firm is available to help. Please contact us to discuss how to balance effective meeting management with compliance under Michigan law.
