A decision in the suit between the City of St. Paul and the Coalition to March on the
RNC and Stop the War was delivered today. At issue was the Coalition's request for a
preliminary injunction regarding the proposed march route and time duration. The ACLU-MN
argued the City's proposal violates the Coalition's right to demonstrate within ‘sight and
sound' of Republican Party delegates during the first day of the Convention.
The Court granted the City's desired route and refused to order changes to the time and duration of the march.
"We are disappointed in the final decision regarding both route and time," stated Teresa Nelson, Legal Counsel, ACLU. "We understand and appreciate the City has significant security concerns with regard to the Convention, but we continued to seek a meaningful balance between those concerns and our clients' right to effectively deliver their message of peace. The Court has simply deferred to the City's stated concerns with no real analysis of them."
The Coalition sought to carry out a safe, permitted march. They sought to do the right thing and deliver their message of peace to the delegates, which is a constitutional right. They are aware of the potential risks associated with large numbers of marchers who have not been given proper consideration by city officials to exercise their first amendment right to demonstrate and have consistently sought to work with the City to protect the citizens of St. Paul, the police, and the media from any harm due to inadequate planning.
"We hoped for a more substantial ruling," Chuck Samuelson, ACLU Executive Director noted. "Specifically, a ruling that would have bound all parties to provide assurances of safety to protect the community, the demonstrators, the police and the delegates. By affirming the City's route, the Court chose to believe the representations made by the City. The City has made many and varied representations in the 18 months we've attempted to reach a mutually-agreeable arrangement."
We acknowledge there are legitimate security issues, and regret that the City has not been able to prioritize these concerns along with our client's first amendment rights.