Joe Walsh, a local activist who frequently attends Portland City Council meetings, took the City of Portland and Mayor Charlie Hales to federal court, alleging that the city's practice of excluding him from City Hall and council sessions for 30- to 60-days at a time violated his First Amendment rights. A judge ruled in his favor Thursday. Here, he's being removed from a 2012 City Council session where they say he interrupted a vote on adding fluoride to the Portland water supply. (The Oregonian)

A federal judge Thursday ruled that Portland Mayor Charlie Hales violated a local activist's First Amendment rights by barring him from City Council meetings for months at a time and ordered the city to halt all prospective exclusions.

"Like judges in their courtrooms, Mayor Hales has the continuing ability to maintain decorum in council meetings by ordering (a) disruptive individual immediately to leave the City Council Chambers,'' U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon wrote in a 28-page ruling. "Maintaining decorum does not, however, require prolonged and prospective exclusions from a forum intended for public discourse and debate.''

Joe Walsh has had three lengthy exclusions from council meetings since September 2014 - two that lasted 30 days and the most recent for 60 days - for yelling and interrupting the proceedings. He filed the claim himself against the city of Portland and the mayor. He argued his case before Judge Simon in federal court on Dec. 21, going up against two deputy city attorneys.

Walsh, 73, said he had no problem with being excluded from a meeting if the mayor found him disruptive. What he can't accept is the mayor or any city official ordering him to stay out of the building or not attend future council sessions, based on his past behavior. He estimated that he had been forced to miss about 17 council meetings. He cited his First Amendment rights to free speech, assemble or petition the government to seek a redress of grievances.

Judge Simon agreed with Walsh. He noted that no federal appellate court opinion ever held that the First Amendment permitted such exclusions for City Council sessions.

Simon said Portland could not "direct or enforce any prospective exclusions'' that are based solely on past incidents of disruption during council meetings. He found that the city code, which allows for a complete and indefinite ban of an individual from council meetings or City Hall, was unconstitutional.

"A permanent injunction will protect the First Amendment rights of Walsh and other similarly-situated individuals without unduly burdening defendants,'' Simon wrote.

"A contrary holding might lead to officials shutting the government's doors to those whose viewpoints the government finds annoying, distasteful, or unpopular. Permanent or even lengthy exclusions for past disruptive conduct could become a convenient guise for censoring criticisms directed toward the powerful,'' the ruling read.

On Thursday morning, Walsh demonstrated outside City Hall, protesting a state appellate court decision this week that ordered the city to reinstate a fired police officer who had shot an unarmed African-American man in the back and killed him in 2010.

When Walsh returned home, he said his wife had two glasses of wine set on a table, and informed him that he had won his case.

"Is this a good way to start the New Year or what?'' Walsh said Thursday afternoon. "I'm delighted.''

He said he thought he might prevail, but seeing it in writing is remarkably satisfying. "I think people need to fight against those who are violating their rights,'' Walsh added.

Sara Hottman, the mayor's spokeswoman, declined to comment Thursday evening because the mayor hadn't read the ruling yet.

City attorneys had argued that Walsh's claim should be thrown out, because his most recent 60-day exclusion had expired Sept. 15. But Simon dismissed that argument, saying such 30- to 60-day exclusions, by their very nature, would likely expire before the conclusion of any litigation.

The city further argued that the month-long or lengthier exclusions were "reasonable restrictions'' due to public safety concerns and to avoid disruptive behavior that impeded the ability of the council to conduct its business. In one meeting, city attorneys said, Walsh banged his fist on a table in front of council members. In another, he tossed a pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution toward the mayor.

The city also cited an incident where a woman had sought an escort from the meeting because she felt fearful after a verbal dispute with Walsh.

The city said Walsh could watch the meetings online and still present written comments ahead of time to commissioners.

The judge, however, found the city's argument lacking. There was no evidence that Walsh had threatened anyone with violence, encouraged others to engage in violence or refused to leave a meeting after the mayor had ordered him to do so, the judge found.

"In this case, mere speculation that some persons may make others feel unsafe or engage in additional disruptions is an insufficient basis upon which to erect a governmental power to bar those who wish to express their views from participating in public debate,'' the judge wrote.

Simon also said barring Walsh or others from City Hall or council sessions for extended periods of time prevents them from accessing other city services, making live comments during council or other city meetings, or formally or informally meeting with elected officials.

"Thus, prolonged and prospective exclusions defeat the very purpose of the forum: to provide the opportunity for discourse on public matters,'' Simon wrote.

The judge's injunction against city exclusions does not prevent the mayor or other city official from ordering disruptive individuals out of a council meeting for the remainder of that meeting. His ruling also doesn't prevent the city from rewriting its exclusion ordinance to conform with his finding, the judge noted.

"...no matter how many meetings of a city council a person disrupts, he or she does not forfeit or lose the future ability to exercise constitutional rights and may not be prospectively barred from attending future meetings,'' Simon ruled. "Our democratic republic is not so fragile, and our First Amendment is not so weak.''

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian