ACLU, FAC say they’ll sue if Modesto doesn’t meet deadlines on mask ordinance
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- ACLU and FAC demand Modesto respond by Oct. 23 and agendize repeal by Nov. 4.
- Groups warn they will sue if City Council fails to act on the ordinance.
- Police review board recommended repeal; city cites legal review and safety concerns.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and First Amendment Coalition sent another letter to the city of Modesto demanding it repeal or amend its ban on face coverings during protests. This time, it gave deadlines.
The letter, sent Thursday, states the city must give a written response by Oct. 23 that provides an update on where the City Council stands on the issue. By Nov. 4, the letter demanded, the city must agendize the topic for discussion.
If the city doesn’t meet the letter’s deadlines, the ACLU and FAC stated they will sue the city.
“Despite outreach from leading First Amendment legal organizations, sustained engagement by your constituents, and an unequivocal recommendation from the CPRB, you have yet to engage with the Ordinance in a public meeting,” the letter reads. “We thus call on the City Council to agendize discussion of the Ordinance’s repeal or amendment as soon as possible. Failure to do so may compel us to initiate legal action against the City in order to protect residents’ constitutional rights.”
The letter added the ordinance “poses an ongoing threat to constitutional freedoms, especially in light of upcoming national protests.” Another “No Kings” protest in Modesto is planned for Oct. 18.
“Because we believe Modesto’s resources would much better serve the community if not spent defending an unconstitutional law, we urge you to take the concerns raised herein seriously,” the letter reads.
Modesto adopted the mask ordinance in 2019 at the request of the Police Department ahead of a planned straight-pride rally. During the “ICE-out” and “No Kings” protests on June 14, five people were arrested on suspicion of wearing face coverings.
Criticism toward the Police Department over how it enforced the ordinance began shortly after. Public comments at City Council and Community Police Review Board meetings also decried the ordinance itself.
On July 18, the ACLU sent its first letter, stating that Modesto’s mask ban is unconstitutionally “vague and overbroad,” violating state and federal protections for free speech, privacy, disability rights and religious freedom. The letter also stated that officers enforced the ban during the protest in a “disparate and viewpoint-discriminatory manner,” raising additional constitutional concerns.
A separate letter was sent to the City Council on behalf of the FAC, the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California chapter and the Pacific Media Workers Guild-CWA Local 39521, raising concerns about the ordinance’s impact on lawful newsgathering.
On Aug. 11, the city announced it would drop the charges against those arrested for the mask ban ordinance but maintained it had “the clear legal authority to enact and enforce” it.
The City Council was urged by its meetings’ public speakers to agendize repealing or amending the ordinance. However, the position of several city officials was that it first should be processed through the Community Police Review Board . The delay in action spurred further criticism, which has been voiced at nearly every City Council meeting since the June protests.
Modesto’s police review board, which also received a letter from the ACLU, ultimately recommended the repeal of the ordinance to City Manager Joe Lopez on Sept. 17. The city stated it would determine what “next steps” needed to be taken.
Lopez wrote review board members a letter stating the city will continue to work with “its First Amendment Counsel to weigh all options and consult with experts to ensure we provide safe and legal environments for individuals to exercise their rights to peacefully protest. “
“It is important that we do our due diligence, given that the City has experienced violent protests in recent years. We anticipate this work being completed in the coming months,” Lopez’s letter reads.
On Thursday, Mayor Sue Zwahlen said that the council had not yet determined what those next steps will be and that she needed to gather more information, particularly legal advice, on how to proceed.
“I continue to conscientiously study all sides of this situation. I take it seriously,” said Zwahlen. “Our council will decide next steps once we have all the information we need to make an informed decision.”
Zwahlen added that she anticipated the matter to be on the agenda soon. When asked if she believed if that would happen before the Nov. 4 deadline set by the ACLU and FAC’s letter, she said she “wasn’t sure.”
Asked if she’d taken a position on the ordinance, Zwahlen said she had not made a “firm decision” and was still gathering information.
The City Council’s next scheduled meeting is on Tuesday. The council did discuss the ACLU’s first letter during closed session on Sept. 23.
This story was originally published October 10, 2025 at 12:47 PM.
