phone ban

A sign in the entrance way of the Saginaw County Governmental Center, 111 S. Michigan in Saginaw, informs citizens about the county's recent ban on cellphones and other electronic devices.

(Andy Hoag | MLive.com)

SAGINAW, MI -- An attorney is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a cellphone ban in Saginaw County courtrooms, which could establish the way phones are treated in courthouses across the country.

Attorney Philip Ellison, on behalf of Tuscola County resident Robert W. McKay, filed a petition to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a cellphone ban in Saginaw County courtrooms.

In 2014, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington ruled that the cellphone ban was constitutional and could continue.

Ludington ruled that citizens do not have a First Amendment right to record courtroom proceedings and that McKay has"not sufficiently alleged an injury." As a result, the judge wrote, McKay lacked standing to file the lawsuit.

Ellison appealed Ludington's decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Ludington's ruling.

The ban went into place on Dec. 16, 2013.

The ban was instituted by the county's judges after alleging problems with people photographing witnesses, jurors conducting online research and ringtones disrupting proceedings. The ban also includes computers and tablets and any other device "capable of communicating information from one person to another."

Ellison sued Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel and former Lt. Randy Pfau because the sheriff's office is responsible for enforcing the ban, but Ludington dismissed the lawsuit.

Ellison said he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case.

"If Supreme Court takes the case, and they hear it, this will establish the law of recording for the whole country and not just Saginaw County," Ellison said.

Ellison's petition questions whether McKay's First Amendment rights were violated and if a plaintiff "bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state law that prohibits protected speech or conduct in which the plaintiff wishes to engage."

Ellison said his client is not seeking any money.

"He is asking the court to rule that the administrative order is unconstitutional," Ellison said.

The petition was expected to reach the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court by Monday, Jan. 9.

Federspiel or Pfau could not be reached for comment.