Public criticism mounts after federal judge freezes Modesto mask ordinance; speakers urge council to stop spending on litigation

Several speakers used the public‑comment period at the Modesto City Council’s July 14 meeting to press the council to drop the city's municipal mask ordinance litigation after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction.

A speaker who identified themselves in a performative tone as “the city of Modesto itself” criticized the court’s decision and framed the ordinance as an attempt to deter protesters’ First Amendment rights. Other commenters including Anne Marie and Bianca Lopez told the council “we told you so,” said the ordinance is unconstitutional and urged the council to stop spending city funds on litigation.

An attorney calling in as Harlan said a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” and signals that the plaintiffs are likely to win the underlying case; he stated the city has already spent about $345,000 defending the ordinance and warned continued spending could raise costs if the case proceeds or is appealed.

Councilmembers did not vote on the litigation during the meeting; public commenters repeatedly asked the council to cease further legal spending and either repeal the ordinance or settle the case. The council did not announce a change in course during the session; the record shows the injunction was granted by Judge John A. Mendez in a related court proceeding referenced by speakers.

Why it matters: Speakers framed the dispute as both a First Amendment and fiscal issue—arguing constitutional rights are at stake and taxpayers are bearing legal costs. The topic generated sustained, emotional public input and calls for policy reversal.

Next steps: The litigation remains pending in federal court; the council did not take action at the meeting on whether to continue or end defense of the ordinance.