A Mississippi city dropped its lawsuit Monday against a newspaper that had its editorial criticizing local leaders removed by a judge in a case that sparked widespread outrage from First Amendment advocates.

The city of Clarksdale’s board of commissioners sought to dismiss its libel lawsuit against The Clarksdale Press Register, filing the request moments after its board of commissioners approved the move.

The judge in the case must still dismiss her order that the editorial be removed from the paper’s website, which the city also asked her to do. She had originally set a hearing for Thursday in the case.

“It’s still very, very wrong what they did and it awakened the entire First Amendment community nationally, which is very encouraging,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, the parent company of the paper. “I’m really excited to see how all these people rallied around us to protect our rights.”

Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued the restraining order against the Press Register last week in connection with a Feb. 8 editorial titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust.” The piece criticized the city for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco.

Clarksdale Mayor Chuck Espy told The Associated Press he asked commissioners to drop the lawsuit because of an offer Emmerich made to write a clarification. Emmerich, however, said that offer was made before the lawsuit was filed and the judge’s order, and is “off the table.”

The city’s request to the court doesn’t mention the offer.

“I am very thankful that this matter is now resolved due to the efforts of the owner of the Clarksdale Press Register and the city of Clarksdale,” Espy told the board before it voted to drop the suit. “I’m grateful for the compromise.”

The newspaper’s owner had offered to clarify that the council said the lack of notification wasn’t a deliberate attempt to hide the meeting, according to a text message he had sent to the city attorney. The text also offered to clarify that a sentence questioning whether there was “kick-back from the community” should have said “push back.”

The order was widely criticized by multiple media and free speech advocacy groups, including the National Press Club and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.