Belkot Appeals Federal Court Dismissal of Clark County Case

Belkot's attorney says the federal appeals court will hear the case in several months after judge dismissed all five claims.

Apr. 17, 2026 at 9:49pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A vibrant, abstract painting featuring overlapping geometric shapes and lines in shades of blue, teal, and purple, conceptually representing the complex legal battle over transparency in local government.A fractured, abstract illustration captures the tensions and lack of transparency within the Clark County Council as they face an appeal over alleged Open Public Meetings Act violations.Union Today

Michelle Belkot and her legal team are appealing a judge's ruling that led to the dismissal of Belkot's case against Clark County. Belkot had claimed that her colleagues on the Clark County Council violated the Open Public Meetings Act when they removed her from the C-TRAN Board of Directors without allowing for public comment. The judge ruled against Belkot on all five claims, but Belkot and her lawyer believe the judge made several mistakes and that her rights were not protected. The federal appeals court is expected to hear the case in the coming months.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tensions and disputes within the Clark County Council, as well as the importance of transparency and adherence to open meeting laws in local government. The outcome of the appeal could have significant implications for how the council conducts its business and the rights of individual council members.

The details

Belkot had claimed that her colleagues on the Clark County Council — Sue Marshall, Wil Fuentes, Glen Yung, and Matt Little — had violated the Open Public Meetings Act when they removed her from the C-TRAN Board of Directors without allowing for public comment. Belkot claimed her colleagues withheld information from the public before voting her off the C-TRAN board last year. The judge, however, ruled that using terms such as 'Policy Updates' and 'Council Reports' 'encompass what the Council discussed' and dismissed all five of Belkot's claims.

  • Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Tiffany Cartwright denied Belkot's motion for summary judgement against Clark County.
  • A month later, Belkot is still frustrated with the judge's ruling.
  • It would likely be several months before the appeal would be heard by three judges in the federal court of appeals.

The players

Michelle Belkot

A member of the Clark County Council who was removed from the C-TRAN Board of Directors by her colleagues and is now appealing the federal court's dismissal of her case against Clark County.

Sue Marshall

The chair of the Clark County Council, who acknowledged that 'maybe (she) should have mentioned it as an agenda item' when Belkot was removed from the C-TRAN board.

U.S. District Court Judge Tiffany Cartwright

The judge who denied Belkot's motion for summary judgement against Clark County and dismissed all five of her claims.

Richard Stephens

Belkot's lawyer, who believes the judge made several mistakes and that Belkot's rights were not protected.

Tony Golik

The Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, who reported that his office asked three different jurisdictions to look into a Skamania County Sheriff's Office report, but all three opted not to take the case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I don't feel the ruling made any sense. It seemed unjust to me.”

— Michelle Belkot, Clark County Council Member

“What she determined is that OPMA doesn't matter. Why is OPMA even a rule?”

— Michelle Belkot, Clark County Council Member

“I feel the judge in our case made several mistakes. Michelle's rights were not protected. It's important to get a federal court of appeals to decide some of these issues.”

— Richard Stephens, Belkot's Lawyer

What’s next

The federal appeals court is expected to hear Belkot's case in the coming months, which will determine if the judge's dismissal of all five claims was justified or if Belkot's rights were indeed violated.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing political tensions within the Clark County Council and the importance of transparency and adherence to open meeting laws in local government. The outcome of the appeal could have significant implications for how the council conducts its business and the rights of individual council members.