CPR for Skid Row v. City of Los Angeles, No. 12-55289 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs brought suit after some plaintiffs were threatened with arrest and one plaintiff was arrested for chanting loudly in protest of an organized walk by public officials and others through Los Angeles’ Skid Row. Plaintiffs challenged a California statutory scheme pertaining to public protests. The district court granted summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Cal. Penal Code 403, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully disturb any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character with some exceptions, is not unconstitutionally vague or an unconstitutional restriction on speech; but (2) section 403 was unconstitutionally applied to Plaintiffs’ activities, as the statute did not cover the meeting at issue here, and therefore, section 403 did not criminalize Plaintiffs’ conduct.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action challenging a California statutory scheme pertaining to public protests. Plaintiffs, CPR for Skid Row and two of its members, brought suit after the members were threatened with arrest and plaintiff Peter White was arrested for chanting loudly in protest of an organized walk by public officials and others through Los Angeles' Skid Row. Plaintiffs challenged California Penal Code § 403, which makes it a misdemeanor to “willfully disturb[] or break[] up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in . . . Section 18340 of the Elections Code.” Section 18340 makes it a misdemeanor to willfully hinder or prevent, by threats, intimidations, or unlawful violence, “electors from assembling in public meetings for the consideration of public questions.” Affirming in part, the panel held that § 403 was not unconstitutional on its face. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to § 403 on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague or an unconstitutional restriction on speech. CPR FOR SKID ROW V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 3 Reversing in part, the panel held that California Penal Code § 403 was unconstitutionally applied to CPR’s activities. The panel held that the plain language of the statute and its legislative history demonstrate that § 403 does not cover political meetings, including the meeting at issue here. The panel held that because CPR’s activities fell within the exception carved out by Elections Code § 18340, § 403 did not criminalize CPR’s conduct. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Reinhardt agreed with the majority’s reversal of the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant and its holding that § 403 of the Penal Code may not be applied to plaintiffs. Judge Reinhardt would hold, however, that § 403 (and §§ 18340 and 302 as well) are unconstitutionally void for vagueness and not simply as applied in the particular circumstances. In addition, although he would not decide the question, Judge Reinhardt believes the statutory scheme, or at least a part of it, is likely also unconstitutional as content-based.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.