Legal News

from the ACLU of Washington

Freedom of Speech at Spokane Transit Plaza

The ACLU and the Center for Justice (CFJ) have reached an agreement with the Spokane Transit Authority to protect freedom of speech at the Plaza in downtown Spokane. The agreement settles a lawsuit challenging restrictions on free speech at Plaza sidewalks filed in on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, and the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane. The suit was filed in US District Court in Spokane in June 2003.

"Public sidewalks have traditionally served as public forums for free speech. People who wish to exercise their rights will now be able to do so without having to get the government's permission beforehand," said ACLU staff attorney Aaron Caplan.

The settlement allows speakers, leafleters, musicians, and other people who ordinarily use city sidewalks without a permit to use Plaza sidewalks without a permit, too. Their activities will not be limited to any particular time period. Previously, the Transit Authority required anyone who wanted to engage in a "public communication activity" on the sidewalk outside the Plaza building to get a permit in advance, and the permit was good for a maximum of five hours a week. The settlement narrows the policy's application to persons or groups who set up a table, chairs, or similar apparatus.

Under the settlement, the Authority may require speakers to stay ten feet away from bus exits and from passengers standing in line for a bus or waiting on a bench, unless the speaker is invited to come closer.

Seattle's Pesky Parade Permits

Seeking to protect free speech rights on Seattle streets, the American Civil Liberties Union has recently filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Seattle challenging the City of Seattle's Parade and Special Events Ordinances. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the October 22 Coalition, a protest group officially granted a parade permit by the City who was nonetheless barred by the Seattle Police Department from marching on the street. The ACLU says Seattle's regulations are confusing, burdensome, and so vague that they wrongly give police unfettered discretion to alter or revoke parade permits.

The lawsuit addresses longstanding problems that many activists have experienced in seeking to hold peaceful marches in Seattle. It comes after years of troubleshooting by the ACLU for groups encountering difficulty with the city's permit process. Seattle uses three separate ordinances that apply to free speech activities in public places, each of which has its own standards and procedures for granting a permit.

In 2003 the Seattle October 22 Coalition obtained both a parade permit and a special events permit authorizing the group to march from Seattle Central Community College to a rally at Hing Hay Park. The parade permit did not include a requirement that a minimum number of marchers participate in order for it to be valid. On the evening of October 22, approximately 80-100 people gathered at the college to take part in the march and rally. When the group moved into the street to begin its march, a Seattle police officer informed organizers that the parade permit had been rescinded because they had too few people. The police officer declined to provide any documentation explaining when or why the permit had been rescinded.

Prevented from marching in the street, the participants were forced to proceed on the sidewalk and stop at all the intersections. As a result, the October 22 Coalition was unable to march as a cohesive body since many participants were cut off from the larger group at intersection lights, limiting the march's effectiveness. Throughout the march, the police occupied at least one lane of traffic, thereby closing off the very streets the marchers were not allowed to use. In addition, a police officer grabbed a sign from a marcher and confiscated it, and the sign was never returned.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring the City from violating the rights of the October 22 Coalition. It also seeks a court ruling that Seattle's Parade and Special Events Ordinances are unconstitutional because they allow city officials and police to place arbitrary conditions on permits and to revoke them without notice.

Washington Figures Prominently in National Challenge to the No-Fly List

A member of the military, a retired Presbyterian minister, and a college student are among seven US citizens who have joined the first nationwide, class-action challenge to the government's "No-Fly" list filed today by the ACLU.

The ACLU lawsuit, filed April 6, 2004 in federal district court in Seattle, was announced at news conferences in Seattle, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Director David M. Stone and their respective agencies.

The No-Fly list is compiled by the TSA and distributed to all airlines with instructions to stop or conduct extra searches of people suspected of being threats to aviation. Many innocent travelers who pose no safety risk whatsoever are stopped and searched repeatedly.

The ACLU is asking the court to declare that the No-Fly list violates airline passengers' Constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and to due process of law under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The ACLU is also asking the TSA to develop satisfactory procedures that will allow innocent people to fly without being treated as potential terrorists and subjected to humiliation and delays.

The seven individual plaintiffs named in the class-action lawsuit include two residents of Washington: John Shaw, 74, a retired Presbyterian minister, from Sammamish, Washington, and Sarosh Syed, 26, a Special Projects Coordinator at the ACLU of Washington in Seattle.

"I am joining this lawsuit today because I have been publicly humiliated and ostracized due to the government's mistake about my identity," said co-plaintiff Michelle D. Green, a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force who has served for 16 years. "As someone who serves her country and obeys the laws of the land, I was shocked to learn I was on the No-Fly list. I was even more disturbed to find that there is no way to get off the list."

The individuals represented in the lawsuit, the ACLU said in legal papers, "are innocent of any wrongdoing and pose no threat to aviation security." Indeed, even after several obtained letters from the TSA stating that they were not a threat, they were still subject to delays and the stigma of enhanced searches, interrogations and detentions.

Suit Seeks Same-Sex Marriage

A suit challenging the denial of same-sex marriage rights in Washington has been filed in Thurston County Superior Court on behalf of 11 couples from across the state who wish to marry in Washington or to have their marriage recognized under Washington law. Plaintiffs include a police officer, a firefighter, a banker, a nurse, a retired judge, a college professor, a business executive, and others. They reside from Seattle to Spokane and from Friday Harbor to Hoquiam.

"The state of Washington has long acknowledged that gay and lesbian couples are suitable to be parents. We must no longer deny them the ability to marry," said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.

Current law unfairly deprives same-sex couples of numerous rights available as a direct benefit of the marriage contract. Among these are community property rights, access to family court, joint assessment of income and needs for determination of state assistance programs, access during health care emergencies and the ability to participate in health care decisions, survivor benefits, and authority to make decisions regarding funeral arrangements.

Attorneys Paul Lawrence and Matthew Segal of the law firm Preston Gates & Ellis, Karolyn Hicks of the firm Stokes Lawrence, Roger Leishman of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, and ACLU-WA staff attorney Aaron Caplan are handling the case.

It is time to for courts to follow the line of reasoning articulated by the U. S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia in 1967. In striking down Virginia's law outlawing marriage between blacks and whites, the Court called the freedom to marry "one of the basic civil rights ..."