Garcia v. County of Alameda
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: Dec. 27, 2024
Background: In 2023, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a law intended to address “sideshows,” which the county described as a “street race, or reckless driving exhibition” that often occurs on public streets and intersections. The law makes it a crime for “any person” to stand within 200 feet of a sideshow on public streets and highways “for the purpose of viewing, observing, watching, or witnessing the Sideshow Event as it progresses.”
Fearing prosecution under the law, a reporter for Oaklandside cancelled all future plans to report on sideshows in person. He later sued the county, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment and the California Constitution. The reporter’s lawsuit asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to block the county from enforcing the law.
The district court denied the reporter’s motion to block enforcement of the law, holding that the observation of public sideshows is “conduct” that is not entitled to First Amendment protection and, in the alternative, that the law survives intermediate scrutiny.
The reporter appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Our Position: In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Los Angeles Times urge the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s order and block the enforcement of the county law.
- The First Amendment’s protection for newsgathering encompasses “viewing, observing, watching, or witnessing” events in public places.
- With no alternative channel left for reporting, the Ordinance is not adequately tailored to a government interest under any standard.
- The public relies on journalists’ ability to observe and access newsworthy events without interference by the government.
From the Brief: “The Ordinance’s ban on observing a sideshow, which as written will in practice inhibit coverage of any police response, necessarily stymies the vital work, most often carried out by the press, of documenting the acts of law enforcement.”