portlandcityhall.jpg

Portland's City Council will vote on a resolution next week to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon's ruling that the city's prospective exclusion orders are unconstitutional. (The Oregonian)

Portland city council members want to appeal a federal judge's ruling that ordered them to cease excluding people for months at a time from council sessions or City Hall.

The mayor and council members believe they can't conduct public business "in a safe and orderly manner if the council cannot exclude a person who disrupts a council session for one or more future council sessions,'' deputy city attorney Harry Auerbach wrote in a statement attached to a council resolution.

The Council will vote next Wednesday to challenge U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Simon's permanent injunction, prohibiting the city from excluding people prospectively from council meetings. Commissioner Dan Saltzman will introduce the resolution, according to the council agenda.

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. (Oregonian)

Local activist Joe Walsh, who had been excluded three times from council meetings since September 2014, had taken Mayor Charlie Hales and the city to federal court.

Walsh succeeded in convincing the judge that the exclusions - two for 30 days and the most recent for 60 days - violated his First Amendment rights to free speech, assemble or petition the government to seek a redress of grievances.

In a 28-page opinion issued Dec. 31, Simon wrote that the mayor could still order someone who is disruptive during a council meeting out of the council chambers for the rest of that meeting but couldn't exclude someone from future sessions. Simon also said the city could rewrite its exclusion order to adhere to his ruling.

Simon pointed out that no federal appellate court opinion ever held that the First Amendment permitted such prospective exclusions. 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.

Hales, in an interview this week, said he didn't agree with the judge's ruling.

"Unlike Judge Simon, we don't have the right to throw someone in jail for contempt of court,'' Hales said. "Either way, we'll figure out how to manage this sideshow.''

Walsh laughed when he heard of the mayor's and council's intent to appeal Simon's order.

"These people never learn,'' Walsh said. "They're going to lose again. With their money, they would not appeal. They're appealing because it's our money.''

Deputy city attorney Auerbach wrote there would be "minor out-of-pocket expenses,'' because lawyers from within the city's attorney's office will handle the appeal.

Walsh promised to be at the council meeting on Wednesday to speak out against the planned appeal. The council meets at 9:30 a.m. in City Hall.

The appeal would go before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian