Sidewalk Sitters Supported Advocates Of Seattle’s Homeless Promise To Protest Ordinance Upheld By A Federal Appeals Court

Declaring the “battle far from over,” advocates for Seattle’s homeless said they would not be deterred by a federal court ruling upholding the city’s sidewalk ordinance.

“We have 90 days to decide whether to appeal the decision. Meantime, you can be sure we’ll be out on the street protesting this law,” said John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition.

“The law explicitly discriminates against the homeless, young people and people of color. … We cannot allow this highly discretionary … law to become the foundation for other, more draconian assaults on the rights of homeless people.”

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld Seattle’s ban on sitting or lying down on sidewalks in commercial areas between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m.

“We are very pleased,” said Mark Sidran, city attorney. “Especially because the majority opinion recognized the city has the right to protect the economic vitality of its business district by prohibiting behaviors that cause people to abandon downtown.”

The ruling, if it survives further appeals, could have a broad effect in the nine-state circuit, where numerous other legal challenges to anti-loitering ordinances are pending. At least a half-dozen U.S. cities are considering laws similar to Seattle’s.

“We’re very happy. … This ruling is a green light to cities trying to reclaim control of their public spaces,” said Rob Teir, spokesman for the American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities, a Washington, D.C., group promoting laws banning panhandling and so-called urban camping.

Seattle’s ordinance took effect in 1994. It was challenged by opponents who argued that sitting or lying on the sidewalk was a form of expression.

Although aimed at panhandlers, the law does not expressly forbid begging or any other expressive conduct and therefore does not violate freedom of speech, the court of appeals said.

Neither sitting nor lying on the sidewalk “is integral to, or commonly associated with, expression,” said the opinion by Judge Alex Kozinski.

In a vigorous dissent, Judge Harry Pregerson said the ordinance was an unconstitutional attempt to rid the city of “social undesirables … to protect the sensibilities of shoppers.”