A Donaldsonville resident has filed a federal lawsuit after the City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance that restricts the recording of public meetings, which the plaintiff says violates the First Amendment.
The ordinance, which passed June 24, requires recorders to provide notice to the council, allows the city to designate certain recording areas and states that recordings shall not “interfere with, distract, disrupt, or otherwise degrade decorum†nor “be intended to harass or intimidate†meeting officials or the public.
It threatens violators with criminal penalties of a $500 fine and 30-day jail imprisonment.
Shentelle Daigle, a former city council candidate and board of adjustments member, filed the lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. Middle District Court. The suit claims the ordinance is overly broad, vague and restricts speech containing certain content. It also argues the ordinance was part of retaliation against Daigle for her filming part of an alleged in May.
Daigle is represented by Bruce Hamilton, director of Tulane Law School’s First Amendment Clinic, and Annie Cleveland, a legal fellow with the program. On Tuesday, Hamilton said Donaldsonville is “deliberately violating the First Amendment rights of its residents by criminalizing the act of recording public meetings.â€
“The recording ordinance conceals the business of government by discouraging residents from recording and reporting on official acts,†he said. “The ordinance is egregiously unconstitutional, and the city should be ashamed of passing it in the first place.â€
Council Chairman Charles Brown Sr., the brother of Clem Brown, declined to comment on the lawsuit but said the ordinance was passed because Daigle’s phone had been ringing during meetings.
“As a consequence, we designated a place in the back. It wasn’t political or anything else,†he said. “We can't have people coming in and trying to take videos while we’re trying to do a meeting.â€
Council Vice Chair Michael Sullivan Sr. said he could not comment on the lawsuit, and Mayor Leroy Sullivan declined to comment after Tuesday’s City Council meeting
Alleges retaliation for video recording
The lawsuit alleges that the council passed the ordinance as retaliation for Daigle filming part of an incident in May when Clem Brown allegedly threatened former mayoral candidate Glenn Price.
“As the two men left the meeting room, Councilman Brown shouted, 'Let’s go behind the levee,' and 'I’ll put a bullet in your head,' to Price,†the lawsuit states. “Ms. Daigle, who attended the May 19 Council meeting, recorded the altercation with her iPhone. While she was filming, Councilman Michael Sullivan physically pushed her hand and repeatedly told her ‘don’t film that.’â€
Clem Brown declined to comment on the incident in June. if his brother said he wanted to fight Price behind the levee, Charles Brown said he was “not going to say he didn’t.â€
Daigle, who has regularly recorded meetings since 2019 and lost to Clem Brown by 19 votes in the 2024 election, didn’t immediately release her recording. The council introduced the ordinance a week after the incident, and she publicly posted the video on Facebook the day before the ordinance vote.
Four days after Daigle posted the video, the council called a special meeting to discuss removing her and another person from the board of adjustments.
“These adverse actions were wholly motivated by punishing Ms. Daigle for engaging in constitutionally protected activity,†the lawsuit states. “Because of Defendant’s actions, Ms. Daigle’s speech has been chilled in fact. She is fearful of and refrains from engaging in protected speech, out of fear of government punishment or further retaliatory action.â€
The council tabled the matter at the meeting without giving a reason and hasn’t addressed it or the incident involving Clem Brown. According to the lawsuit, Daigle hasn’t received any information about her potential removal since June.
“On August 22, 2025, Ms. Daigle’s counsel sent a letter on her behalf to Mayor Sullivan and members of the City Council, asking for clarification as to why Ms. Daigle’s removal from the Board was proposed,†the lawsuit added. “Defendant City never acknowledged the letter.â€
Also seeks enforcement law
The lawsuit asks the court to find the ordinance in violation of the First Amendment, arguing the ordinance is vague and overbroad.
It points to the terms “interfere with,†“distract,†and “otherwise degrade decorum†as vague, wherein an average person would be unable to know what kind of speech is allowed under the ordinance. The lawsuit also targets part of the ordinance that bans the publication of recordings edited in a “form which misrepresents the manner in which the meeting was conducted or the events that occurred during the meeting.â€
“The publication of such recordings is protected by the First Amendment, even if the recordings are edited,†the suit said. “The speech limitations in the Recording Ordinance sweep a substantial amount of protected speech within the Ordinance’s ambit.â€
It also asks the court to find the city in violation of ¶¶Òõh Open Meetings Laws, pointing to the city’s lack of posting meeting minutes for board, committee and some council meetings.
The complaint states the city has failed to post agendas and minutes for any standing or special committee, board, or commission since April 2020. The city has also failed to post council minutes since June 30, according to the lawsuit and the .
Officials in violation of the ¶¶Òõh Open Meetings Laws face fines of up to $500 per violation, and the lawsuit asks the court to enforce such penalties.