Judge strikes down fees and restrictions on marches

Kennebec Journal
Dec. 24, 2005

Augusta's parade ordinance was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a federal judge, who ruled that the city unfairly imposed fees and rules on protesters.

In a ruling that city officials said they likely would appeal, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock Jr. strongly rejected most aspects of a capital-city ordinance that requires marchers to provide 30-day-notice, pay fees and meet with the police chief.

"To march is to speak," Woodcock wrote. "A parade, as speech, especially as political speech, invokes the First Amendment and commands this Court's protection."

Lawyers on both sides of the case declared Woodcock's decision a landmark ruling with potentially wide ramifications -- particularly his conclusion that the city must waive parade fees for those who cannot afford them.

The fee "is the equivalent of a determination that those who cannot afford to pay the fee have a less important message to convey," Woodcock wrote. "Consequently, the ordinance must afford a fee waiver for those unable to pay."

"This is a ruling that breaks new legal ground -- which is a good reason to appeal it," City Attorney Stephen Langsdorf said.

"This is the first decision in the country that I know of that requires an indigent exemption," he said, referring to Woodcock's language on waiving fees.

The case was brought by Timothy Sullivan of Castine, an organizer of a 2004 "March for Truth" parade in Augusta.

After calculating traffic-control costs, the Augusta Police Department charged Sullivan more than $1,500 for a permit -- an amount Sullivan thought excessive.

A second plaintiff, Larry Danzinger of Monroe, joined the suit after claiming that the cost of a permit prevented him from holding a workers' rights march in the city.

Plaintiffs' attorneys hailed the decision by Woodcock -- appointed to the U.S. District Court in Bangor by President Bush in 2003 -- as a powerful reminder of free-speech rights.

"It's an important ruling saying that average Americans can be heard, even if they have to take to the streets to do it," said attorney David Webbert of Augusta.

Maine Civil Liberties Union lawyer Zachary Heiden said the force of Woodcock's 51-page ruling is in its assertive and eloquent prose.

"Because it is so well-articulated ... we think it's going to be an opinion that's persuasive for judges across the country," Heiden said. "And, hopefully, it will be persuasive for cities and towns across the country as they are trying to figure out how to deal with people who want to gather and march and protest."

But Langsdorf predicted that the ruling -- if it stands -- would cost cities and towns thousands of dollars each time somebody wants to march, because marchers would claim poverty and municipalities would not be reimbursed.

There is no reason to make parades free, Langsdorf said, because "there are other free means of expressing speech that are available, including rallying on the Statehouse steps."

Langsdorf consulted with Augusta Mayor William Dowling on the ruling Thursday.

They decided to ask the Augusta City Council for permission to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This is a very interesting case," Langsdorf said. "There's a possibility this case will end up being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court."

The Augusta ordinance exempted athletic events from parade fees, but Woodcock ruled that unconstitutional, because the law requires all parades to be treated equally.

"The same size event, in the same place, with the same impact -- indeed the same people present -- so long as the event concerns athletics -- is excused from obtaining a permit," Woodcock wrote. "For this reason, (the law) cannot be considered content-neutral."

Likewise, Woodcock dismissed as unconstitutional rules requiring parade organizers to notify the city 30 days in advance, saying most courts have limited notification rules to a week or less.

And he said a city requirement that parade organizers meet with the police chief is unconstitutional, partly "because it creates another time barrier to a citizen who is seeking to promote a spontaneous or prompt demonstration in response to a time-sensitive issue or event."

Woodcock also said some applicants might be uncomfortable meeting with police and might not march as a result.

The text of Woodcock's ruling is available online at http://www.med.uscourts.gov/.