FORT COLLINS - Fort Collins plans to appeal a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt enforcement of the city’s ban on women appearing topless in public.

Attorneys representing the city on Tuesday notified the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that they will appeal a preliminary injunction granted in February by U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson that blocks a section of the city’s public nudity law.

In granting the preliminary injunction, Brooke stated he would likely rule in favor of members of the group Free the Nipple who sued the city claiming the ordinance violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against women.

Brit Hoagland and Sam Six are seeking a permanent injunction against the city’s topless ban. </s> FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) — A Colorado city plans to appeal a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt enforcement of its ban on women going topless.

The Coloradoan reports attorneys for the city of Fort Collins notified a federal appeals court Tuesday of their intent to challenge a preliminary injunction blocking a section of the city’s public nudity law.

In granting the injunction last month, the judge said he would likely find the city ordinance that makes it a crime for women but not men to show their nipples unconstitutional.

The Fort Collins City Council voted to keep the law in 2015, rejecting a growing movement to remove gender-specific indecency codes. Two women then sued to challenge the law.

The city has argued the ordinance is needed to maintain public order and protect children. </s> © Austin Humphreys/The Coloradoan Samantha Six, left, is a plaintiff in federal lawsuit against the city of Fort Collins contesting its ban on women appearing topless in public

FORT COLLINS, Colo. — The city of Fort Collins plans to appeal a federal judge’s decision to block the city’s ban on women appearing topless in public.



Attorneys representing the city on Tuesday notified the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that they will appeal a preliminary injunction granted in February by U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson that blocks a section of the city’s public nudity law.

In granting the preliminary injunction, Brooke stated he would likely rule in favor of members of the group Free the Nipple, who sued the city claiming the ordinance violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against women.

Brit Hoagland and Sam Six are seeking a permanent injunction against the city’s topless ban.

The appeal will be considered by a three-judge panel that will review the record of the case as well as written briefs and possibly hear oral arguments before issuing its decision, said David Young, public relations coordinator for the city, in an email to the Coloradoan.

“We are seeking a higher court’s review of the District Court decision in light of the existing case law related to this legal issue,” Young said.

The timeline for the court to hear the case and make a decision is not clear.

Denver attorney David Lane, whose firm is representing Hoagland and Six, said the city “doesn’t have much of a chance” with its appeal.

“They are wasting a tremendous amount of taxpayer money to hide from female breasts,” he said.

In his ruling, Jackson stated he was not impressed with the city’s arguments that the ordinance was needed to maintain public order and “protect children.”

The city also noted that the law is not unique and that many Fort Collins residents would be upset if the law were struck down, he stated.

“Unfortunately, our history is littered with many forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women. As the barriers have come down, one by one, some people have been made uncomfortable,” Jackson stated.

“In our system, however, the Constitution prevails over popular sentiment.”

Jackson also noted that other courts across the country have supported arguments similar to those offered by Fort Collins regarding whether women may appear topless in public. The issue is about equal rights for women, he stated.

“After much thought, I have concluded that going out on this lonely limb is the right thing to do. I have no more right to fall back on ‘the way we have always done it’ than others who have reassessed their thinking.”

Folloow Kevin Duggan on Twitter: @coloradoan_dugg </s> Update: Attorney David Lane says the decision by Fort Collins to appeal last month's temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the city's topless ordinance (see our previous coverage below) is a "titanic waste of money." He estimates that the fight will cost taxpayers in the community $250,000 for reasons that strike him as patently absurd.

"I can only assume that someone in Fort Collins was either attacked by or seriously offended by a wild nipple," he says. "Now that they're uncaged, you know how they can get."

According to Lane, he has heard no reports about "sightings of uncaged nipples since the injunction occurred," which only makes the expense of an appeal even more jaw-dropping. "If they run through all their appeals, it'll cost about a quarter of a million bucks" — around $150,000 to pay the fees for his firm, as well as around $100,000 for outside counsel retained by FoCo.

Such an outlay is definitely a gamble, because Lane doesn't see a path to victory for the city. He considers U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson's rationale for instituting the restraining order in February to be "the correct legal interpretation," and he has "no reason to believe" that a three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the recent home base of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, will feel differently. In his view, "there are a lot of very smart judges on the 10th Circuit who will agree with Judge Jackson."

He asks the following questions of Fort Collins taxpayers: "How many cops could be hired for a quarter-million dollars? How many teachers could be hired for a quarter-million dollars? Do you really have nothing better to do with your tax dollars than protect the people of Fort Collins from unchained nipples, of which apparently none have been cited since the injunction went into effect? Although nipples are like migratory birds: They only appear seasonally."

Lane adds: "Apparently, Fort Collins is one of the richest jurisdictions in the State of Colorado. If they have a quarter-million dollars to waste on protecting people from nipple sightings, their schools must be incredible, their police department must be outstanding, their roads must not need any work.... Apparently, Fort Collins is willing to pay any amount to protect its citizens from nipples."

Original post: Fort Collins is appealing a temporary restraining order issued last month against the enforcement of a public-indecency ordinance that includes the words "the breast or breasts of a female," despite a statement from the ruling judge that he would likely rule against the community on constitutional grounds.

As first reported by the Fort Collins Coloradoan, city attorneys notified Denver's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of the action, which attacks a February edict from U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson shared below.

The appeal refutes a prediction made after Jackson's ruling by attorney David Lane, whose clients, Brittany Hoagland and Samantha Six, represent an organization dubbed Free the Nipple — Fort Collins. He told us at the time that the order leaves Fort Collins "with two choices. They can probably try to prevent everyone from walking around bare-chested — and good luck with that. Or they can just let it go."

As we've reported, it's legal for women to be topless in numerous Colorado communities, including Denver, as evidenced by the hundreds who marched along the 16th Street Mall as part of Go Topless Denver Day this past summer.

Fort Collins chose a different path, prompting Hoagland's initial group, Go Topless Fort Collins, to lobby its city council to make a change. But in October 2015, the council left the prohibition against female toplessness in place for everyone other than breastfeeding mothers and girls ages ten and younger, prompting the launch of a lawsuit in June 2016.

After the suit's filing, Fort Collins asked U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson to dismiss the complaint. But last October, Jackson allowed it to move forward on two of the three central claims — and while his decision didn't officially resolve the matter, Lane told us at the time that "the handwriting is on the wall. When the judge says, 'This statute is unconstitutional,' for whatever reason, that means this fight is basically over."

Of the three rationales presented by Lane to fight the Fort Collins ordinance, the one Jackson rejected was related to free speech.

"He said the First Amendment doesn't apply here because it's conduct-based," Lane said for an October 2016 post. "Now, conduct can be First Amendment-protected speech. But you have to have a particularized message you're putting out there, and these women have done that. But the other key, on a First Amendment conduct analysis, is that a viewer has to be able to readily understand what your message is conveying. For example, if you burn an American flag, a viewer would immediately understand, 'Oh, this is a protest against America.' So it's a particularized message that's very clearly understandable by the average person. A bunch of women going topless, they're putting out a message, but it's not a message that's readily understandable by the average person. Therefore, he said, the First Amendment doesn't apply."

However, Lane went on, Jackson "said equal protection and the Colorado Equal Rights Amendment do apply. To say men can go topless but women can't is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment in the Colorado Constitution."

Jackson confirmed Lane's interpretation in his injunction order. In one passage, the judge wrote, "Throughout this case, Fort Collins has repeatedly pointed out that it is far from unique in enacting laws that criminalize females — and only females — who appear topless in public." After adding references to similar ordinances in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, he noted the city's argument that "striking down the law would upset many Fort Collins residents."

His response? "Unfortunately, our history is littered with many forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women. As the barriers have come down, one by one, some people were made uncomfortable. In our system, however, the Constitution prevails over popular sentiment."

Lane, speaking in February shortly after the order was made public, summarized the ruling like so: "The judge said that the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that men and women be treated equally. Fort Collins is one of the few jurisdictions anywhere that makes the distinction, saying that men can walk around bare-chested and women can't. But the judge shot down all the reasons Fort Collins was using to justify it."

Among the defenses, Lane continued, "was, 'Think of the children!' But the judge said, 'I think one of the first things children see when they're born are nipples — on breasts.'"

Fighting the lawsuit has already proven expensive, as Hoagland emphasized with the following Facebook graphic, shared shortly after the judge's order last month.

One estimate suggests that an appeal could cost Fort Collins more than three times this amount and drag out for as long as a year.

Hoagland, who wants the temporary restraining order made permanent, was among many observers who thought the fight over the Fort Collins ordinance had ended. On Facebook, she wrote, "I MUST STRESS this win is not just for bodies we see on billboards! This win is for gender nonconforming people, trans people, disabled people, black people, brown people, fat people, for young and old, for tattooed and scarred!"

She added, "The diversity of the human body deserves to be celebrated, represented and COMFORTABLE especially on a hot day! That means you, if you so choose."

This choice is not yet final for the citizens of Fort Collins thanks to the city's latest move. Here's the aforementioned order from Judge R. Brooke Jackson. </s> In this Aug. 7, 2015, photo, people participate in a topless rally to dispute a city ordinance on exposure that requires women to cover their nipples in Springfield, Mo. Nipples can be exposed in Springfield while the American Civil Liberties Union and city leaders seek to resolve a dispute over an indecent exposure ordinance passed after the topless rally, the ACLU announced Monday, Jan. 25, 2016.

Start the conversation, or Read more at The Gazette. </s> France’s top judges have suspended a ban on burkinis on French beaches which sparked worldwide outrage and criticism.

The country’s highest administrative court released a statement saying the ban would be suspended pending a definitive ruling.

It said the ban "seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms to come and go, freedom of beliefs and individual freedom".

The Conseil d'Etat gave the ruling following a request from the League of Human Rights to overturn the burkini ban in the Mediterranean town of Villeneuve-Loubet on the grounds it contravenes civil liberties.

A human rights lawyer says the decision by France's top administrative court to overturn a ban on burkini swimsuits should set a legal precedent for the whole country.

Lawyer Patrice Spinosi, representing the Human Rights League, told reporters that other mayors who have banned burkinis must conform to Friday's decision regarding the town of Villeneuve-Loubet.

He also said women who have already received fines can protest them based on Friday's decision.

"It is a decision that is meant to set legal precedent," he said. "Today all the ordinances taken should conform to the decision of the Council of State. Logically the mayors should withdraw these ordinances. If not legal actions could be taken" against those towns.

"Today the state of law is that these ordinances are not justified. They violate fundamental liberties and they should be withdrawn."

But the mayor of Sisco in northern Corsica says he won't lift his ban which was put in place after sunbathers of North African origin clashed with Sisco villagers on the beach earlier in August.

He told BFM-TV on Friday: "Here the tension is very, very, very strong and I won't withdraw it."

A protest against France’s “oppressive” ban on was staged at the country’s embassy in London on Thursday.

Both Muslim and non-Muslim women donned burkinis, bikinis and swimsuits to sit on a makeshift beach in a bid to force the French government to repeal the "oppressive" law, under which women on beaches have been ordered to remove religious clothing by armed police.

Under the French legal system, temporary decisions can be handed down before the court takes more time to prepare a judgement on the underlying legality of the case.

This page is being updated. </s> France’s top administrative court has overturned a town burkini ban amid shock and anger worldwide after some Muslim women were ordered to remove body-concealing garments on French Riviera beaches.

The ruling by the Council of State specifically concerns a ban in the Riviera town of Villeneuve-Loubet.

Under the French legal system, temporary decisions can be handed down before the court takes more time to prepare a judgement on the underlying legality of the case.

The ruling will be binding and will affect at least 30 other coastal towns, mainly in southeast France, that have made similar decrees.

Lawyers for two human rights groups challenged the legality of the ban, saying the orders infringe basic freedoms and that mayors have overstepped their powers by telling women what to wear on beaches.

Mayors had cited concern about public order after deadly Islamic extremist attacks this summer, and many officials have argued that burkinis oppress women.

Lawyer Patrice Spinosi, representing the Human Rights League, told reporters that the decision should set a precedent, and that other mayors should conform to it. He also said women who have already received fines can protest against them based on Friday’s decision.

Images of uniformed police appearing to require a woman to take off her tunic in Nice, and media accounts of similar incidents, have elicited shock and anger online this week. Some fear that burkini bans in several French towns, based on a strict application of French secularism policies, are worsening religious tensions.

The mayor of Sisco, in northern Corsica, said he will not lift his ban on the burkini despite the ruling.

Ange-Pierre Vivoni had banned the burkini after an August 13th clash on a beach in Sisco. He told BFM-TV: “Here the tension is very, very, very strong and I won’t withdraw it.”

He conceded he does not know whether a woman was actually wearing a burkini the day a clash occurred that set a group of sunbathers of North African origin, from another town, against villagers from Sisco.

It took days to untangle the events leading to the violence that many immediately assumed was over a burkini.

Divisions have emerged in President Francois Hollande’s government over the bans, and protests have been held in London and Berlin by those defending women’s right to wear what they want on the beach. Critics of the local decrees have said the orders are too vague, prompting local police officials to fine even women wearing the traditional Islamic headscarf and the hijab, but not burkinis. </s> France’s highest administrative court on Friday suspended a controversial ban on the burkini by a French Riviera town after it was challenged by rights groups.

In a judgement expected to set a precedent, the State Council ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if wearing the Islamic swimsuit was a “proven risk” to public order.

The judges said there was no such risk in the case before the court concerning Villeneuve-Loubet, one of around 30 towns to have introduced the bans.

The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) hailed the ruling as a “victory for common sense”.

Police have fined Muslim women for wearing burkinis on beaches in several towns, including in the popular tourist resorts of Nice and Cannes, sparking controversy in France and abroad.

The burkini bans have triggered a fierce debate about women’s rights and the French state’s strictly-guarded secularism.

– ‘Line in the sand’ -Amnesty International welcomed the ruling.

“By overturning a discriminatory ban that is fuelled by and is fuelling prejudice and intolerance, today’s decision has drawn an important line in the sand,” Amnesty’s Europe director John Dalhuisen said.

“French authorities must now drop the pretence that these measures do anything to protect the rights of women,” he said.

The CFCM’s secretary general Abdallah Zekri said: “This victory for common sense will help to take the tension out of a situation which has become very tense for our Muslim compatriots, especially women.”

The State Council heard arguments from the Human Rights League and an anti-Islamophobia group.

A court in Nice had upheld the Villeneuve-Loubet ban this week.

President Francois Hollande said Thursday that life in France “supposes that everyone sticks to the rules and that there is neither provocation nor stigmatisation”.

Anger over the issue was further inflamed this week when photographs in the British media showed police surrounding a woman in a headscarf on a beach in Nice as she removed a long-sleeved top.

The office of Nice’s mayor denied that the woman had been forced to remove clothing, telling AFP she was showing police the swimsuit she was wearing under her top, over a pair of leggings, when the picture was taken.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Thursday condemned any “stigmatisation” of Muslims, but maintained that the burkini was “a political sign of religious proselytising”.

“We are not at war with Islam… the French republic is welcoming (to Muslims), we are protecting them against discrimination,” he told BFMTV.

But in a sign of the divisions within the Socialist government on the issue, Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said the “proliferation” of burkini bans “was not a welcome development”.

Vallaud-Belkacem, who is of Moroccan origin, took issue with the wording of the ban in Nice which linked the measure to the jihadist truck attack in the resort last month in which 86 people were killed.

“In my opinion, there is nothing to prove that there is a link between the terrorism of Daesh and what a woman wears on a beach,” she said, using another term for Islamic State.

But Valls contradicted his minister’s claims, saying the bans were necessary to maintain “public order”.

– ‘No legal justification’ -The administrative court in Nice ruled Monday that the Villeneuve-Loubet ban was “necessary” to prevent “public disorder” after the Nice attack and the murder of a Catholic priest by two jihadists in northern France.

But in its ruling, the State Council said: “In the absence of such risks, the emotion and the concerns arising from terrorist attacks, especially the attack in Nice on July 14, are not sufficient to legally justify a ban.”

The so-called burkini bans never actually mention the word burkini, although they are clearly aimed at the garment which covers the hair but leaves the face visible and stretches down to the ankles.

The vague wording of the prohibitions has caused confusion.

Apart from the incident in the photographs in Nice, a 34-year-old mother of two told AFP on Tuesday she had been fined on the beach in the resort of Cannes wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf.

France was the first European country to ban the wearing of the Islamic face veil in public in 2010. </s> France’s highest administrative court on Friday suspended a controversial ban on the burkini by a French Riviera town after it was challenged by rights groups.

In a judgement expected to set a precedent, the State Council ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if wearing the Islamic swimsuit was a “proven risk” to public order.

The judges said there was no such risk in the case before the court concerning Villeneuve-Loubet, one of around 30 towns to have introduced the bans.

The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) hailed the ruling as a “victory for common sense”.

Police have fined Muslim women for wearing burkinis on beaches in several towns, including in the popular tourist resorts of Nice and Cannes, sparking controversy in France and abroad. The burkini bans have triggered a fierce debate about women’s rights and the French state’s strictly-guarded secularism.

“By overturning a discriminatory ban that is fuelled by and is fuelling prejudice and intolerance, Friday’s decision has drawn an important line in the sand,” Amnesty’s Europe director John Dalhuisen said.“French authorities must now drop the pretence that these measures do anything to protect the rights of women,” he said.

The CFCM’s secretary general Abdallah Zekri said, “This victory for common sense will help to take the tension out of a situation which has become very tense for our Muslim compatriots, especially women.”

The State Council heard arguments from the Human Rights League and an anti-Islamophobia group.

A court in Nice had upheld the Villeneuve-Loubet ban this week.

President Francois Hollande said yesterday that life in France “supposes that everyone sticks to the rules and that there is neither provocation nor stigmatization”.

Anger over the issue was further inflamed this week when photographs in the British media showed police surrounding a woman in a headscarf on a beach in Nice as she removed a long-sleeved top.

The office of Nice’s mayor denied that the woman had been forced to remove clothing, telling AFP she was showing police the swimsuit she was wearing under her top, over a pair of leggings, when the picture was taken.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Thursday condemned any “stigmatization” of Muslims, but maintained that the burkini was “a political sign of religious proselytizing”.

But in a sign of the divisions within the Socialist government on the issue, Education Minister Najat Vallaud- Belkacem said the “proliferation” of burkini bans “was not a welcome development”.

Vallaud-Belkacem, who is of Moroccan origin, took issue with the wording of the ban in Nice which linked the measure to the jihadist truck attack in the resort last month in which 86 people were killed. “In my opinion, there is nothing to prove that there is a link between the terrorism of Daesh and what a woman wears on a beach,” she said, using another term for Islamic State.
The American city of Fort Collins, Colorado, announces its intention to appeal a federal judge's ruling that blocked the city’s ban on women appearing topless in public.