Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich. (Video screenshot)
A lawyer representing hairstylists who protested Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s shutdown order by giving free haircuts is demanding that state regulators who want to punish the stylists back off.
The letter from lawyer Dave Kallman of the Kallman Legal Group to Lorne Carignan of the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs argues the women’s protest was free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The state’s claims the hairstylists committed criminal misdemeanors, accusing them of giving out the free haircuts in a facility that was not licensed.
The stylists are Suzanne Dodoro, Rachael Sheeran, Danielle Ashcraft, Brenda Root, Londa Gatt and Angela Rigas.
TRENDING: GOP lawmaker forces DOJ whistleblower to make serious admission about impeachment
“All of my clients were well within their rights, statutorily and constitutionally, to protest at the Capitol on May 20, 2020,” Kallman wrote. “Indeed the actual name of the event (Operation Haircut Protest, see attached Facebook Page) clearly indicated that the event was a pure form of free speech and assembly. None of these hairstylists were operating their businesses that day, charging for haircuts, or engaging in commerce in way way.
“My clients were in compliance and did not violate the law.”
See Whitmer’s remarks at a press conference:
Kallman insiste the state “must act within the confines of our Constitution.”
“Citizens hold many differing political views, and they often hold them passionately. They may express those views even in ways that offend government officials,” he argued.
He said the hairstylists’ “speech was at the core of the First Amendment’s protection because it deals with matters of public concern.”
“These hairstylists were protesting the governor’s EOs and her shutdown of the entire state of Michigan as a result of COVID-19, a topic of political, social, and public concern,” he said.
“It is clear that the state is pursuing this formal complaint against these hairstylists because of their protestations against the governor, despite using a generally applicable statute as a vehicle to do so. The conduct in this case which triggered the state’s action consisted of these hairstylists communicating a message and protesting the legality of the governor’s EOs,” the lawyer said.
“Therefore, the state’s action must be dismissed because it infringes on these hairstylists’ First Amendment right to protest.”
Critics argue the governor violated her own executive orders regarding public gatherings to march with protesters with whom she agreed.
However, Kallman wrote, “if you protest her, and exercise your First Amendment rights, she will prosecute you and try to destroy your business.”
