Roulette

Roulette v. City of Seattle

Good Law
78 F.3d 1425·1996 WL 115937
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 18, 1996No. 94-35354California5,725 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kozinski, J.

The first step to wisdom is calling a thing by its right name. Whoever named “parkways” and “driveways” never got to step two; whoever named “sidewalks” did.

Seeing the wisdom of preserving the sidewalk as an area for walking along the side of the road, the City of Seattle passed an ordinance generally prohibiting people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain commercial areas between seven in the morning and nine in the evening. SMC §§ 15.48.040. 1 The ordinance doesn’t restrict sitting or lying in public parks, private or public plazas, or alleys, nor sitting on the sidewalk in noncommercial areas of the city. It also permits sitting on the sidewalks in the commercial areas at night. No one may be cited, moreover, unless first notified by a police officer that he’s sitting or lying where he shouldn’t.

Plaintiffs come from many walks: homeless people and their advocates, social service providers, a deputy registrar of voters, a street musician, and various organizations like the Freedom Socialist Party and the Seattle chapter of the National Organization for Women. What brings them together, and what defines the class they represent, is that they all…

Dissenting Opinion

Pregerson, J.

dissenting:

Two aspects of the majority opinion are troublesome. First, the majority requires plaintiffs mounting a First Amendment challenge to show that the challenged ordinance restricts conduct that is “integral to, or commonly associated with, expression.” Maj. at 3549. Second, the majority fails to analyze Seattle’s sidewalk ordinance under traditional time, place, and manner standards.

I

Seattle’s sidewalk ordinance bans lying or sitting on sidewalks in the city’s business areas between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. SMC § 15.48.040(A). 1 The sidewalk ordinance thus makes it illegal for people to communicate, meet, protest, sleep, beg, solicit alms, or engage in other First Amendment activities on Seattle’s sidewalks whenever sitting or lying is involved. That this ordinance aims at expressive conduct is evidenced by the ordinance’s multiple exceptions that allow sitting and lying in non-expressive situations. SMC § 15.48.040(B).

*1431 It is undeniable that city sidewalks are public forums meant for a variety of expressive activities in addition to walking.

United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 179 , 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1708 , 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983). Indeed, because…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.