Republican Convention

Protesters march at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008. Courts have generally upheld restrictions placed on the areas around political conventions, as cities say they are put there for safety reasons.

(Associated Press file photo)

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- While the city of Cleveland faces a lawsuit from First Amendment advocates over what they view as the stifling of free speech around the Republican National Convention, courts have generally held that such restrictions are OK if they are in place to ensure safety.

Several attorneys and constitutional law professors contacted by cleveland.com said courts have not been consistent on ruling on what what people can do and where they can travel in a political convention's so-called "event zone." As every city is different, such restrictions are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The experts also said that courts have made it clear that not ruling on applications in a timely fashion is problematic, and could spell trouble as the city continues to wait on approving many requests.

All of that said, the clock is ticking, as the convention will take over downtown Cleveland in 31 days.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, representing a conservative activist group, a coalition of liberal groups and homeless advocates, filed suit against the city and Mayor Frank Jackson on Wednesday.

It argues that the restrictions the city imposed throughout downtown and beyond, which includes only allowing parades along a certain route and dictates what items can and cannot be used, violate the free-speech rights of protesters and those who live and will travel downtown for the convention.

It seeks to shrink the size of the event zone -- which stretches from West 25th Street to the Innerbelt, and from the lake south to the corridor between Orange Avenue and East 22nd Street.

The ACLU is asking a judge to force the city to immediately act on all applications for those who want to protest in two downtown parks and on a parade route. It is also asking the judge to alter the route that protesters can use for their parades so the protesters can be seen and heard, and to increase the hours during which parades may be held.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin, who is presiding over the ACLU's lawsuit, has given the city until Monday to respond to the lawsuit. He will hold a private hearing in his chambers Thursday on whether to grant the ACLU's request.

The city has granted applications for some groups that intend to demonstrate at the convention, which will take place July 18-21. However, court filings say that the city has not yet approved or denied requests from those who want to hold parades during the convention.

The city is fighting the suit with all its might, bringing Jones Day partner and former Ohio Supreme Court justice Yvette McGee Brown as its defense. It also is asking a judge to bring the RNC's host and arrangement committees in as as defendants, saying that both entitles also had a hand in planning.

While the ACLU is demanding large and small concessions from the city, we will focus on the lawsuit's two overarching issues: restrictions in the event zone and the city's response to protester permit applications, in examining whether what the city is doing is constitutional.

Restrictions in the 'event zone'

The courts have not been consistent on what they say is allowed and what they say is not around a convention.

Many of the cases have focused on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators.

In 2004, for example, the ACLU sued the city of Boston, which hosted the Democratic National Convention that year, in an attempt to expand a free-speech zone. A judge, upon hearing security concerns from the city, declined the ACLU's request.

And in 2008, the ACLU sued St. Paul, Minnesota, the host of that year's GOP convention, challenging the city's guidelines for protests after being denied a requested protest route. A judge ended up declaring the guidelines "null and void," but declined to force the city to approve a specific route, writing "the Court expects the parties to work together" to develop a plan.

Unlike Boston and other cities that hosted conventions, Cleveland will not have a free-speech zone. The city has designated two parks as areas where protesters can apply for permits to set up tables and public art installations.

The city will allow demonstrations throughout most of the event zone -- even in areas near the Quicken Loans Arena, where the convention will be held -- provided they do not block pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the streets and sidewalks and do not endanger public safety. Certain items, such as coolers tennis balls and water guns, will not be allowed within the event zone.

It has also set up a parade route which begins at the west end of the Lorain-Carnegie bridge, heads east toward downtown before turning right on Ontario Street, near Progressive Field, and under Interstate 90 before ending at East 9th Street.

Ruthann Robson, a law professor at City University of New York, said in an email Thursday that courts have generally deferred to cities' judgment. Cities are given discretion so long as the restrictions do not favor one group over another -- for example, allowing a pro-Donald Trump group closer to the Q than a group opposing the presumptive nominee.

"The government generally has an easy time showing that it has sufficient interests: preventing violence and indeed preventing 'terrorist' acts," Robson wrote.

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, agreed, saying that "the general principle is that government can regulate time place and as long as it does so in a reasonable manner."

Responding to permit applications

The experts said the law is fairly clear when it comes to granting and denying protester permits: it must be done in a reasonable period of time.

While the word "reasonable" leaves some wiggle room, courts have held that applicants must have time to appeal a permit's denial.

City officials have said they can't evaluate all of the requests until the U.S. Secret Service identifies the security perimeter around the Q. They said they don't expect to have the information until two to three weeks before the convention.

The ACLU says this delay is unacceptable and does not leave ample time for planning or appeal.

And the experts say the law may be on the ACLU's side. Cleveland First Amendment attorney J. Michael Murray said an "undue delay is something that gets cities in trouble. When it comes to issuing licenses, and time and again the Supreme Court has held is a delay of that kind is unconstitutional."

Murray noted that he hasn't studied the Cleveland case closely, but is familiar with it. He added that "It seems to me it's a little difficult to justify the kind of delay that we're talking about."

Stone, who is on the ACLU's national advisory council but has no involvement in the Cleveland case, said the failure to respond to permit applications in a timely manner is what led to some of the disruption and riots that plagued the Democratic National Convention held in his city in 1968.

He pointed to a 1973 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion about a group of protesters who sued because their application was not ruled upon before the convention.

"It's pretty clear what the law is," Stone said. "The question is; how do you apply it?"