- in United States
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Energy and Natural Resources and Criminal Law topic(s)
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley addressed a city council's attempt to recess a public meeting and reconvene in a separate room with only the press present and a video connection to the public when faced with disruptive audience conduct. Under Government Code section 54957.9, of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the mayor cannot simply recess a meeting when disruptive conduct occurs and reconvene it in a separate room without members of the public present. The mayor must first order the room cleared and can then proceed in the same room with at least members of the press present.
Background
On September 30, 2025, the First District Court of Appeal issued a published opinion in Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley, Case No. A172245. The Court found, as a matter of law, that a valid claim exists under the Brown Act after Berkeley People's Alliance ("Alliance") challenged how the city council handled disruptions at a city council meeting. The case involved three separate occasions when audience members disrupted a city council meeting, and the mayor determined the city council was unable to conduct business due to the disruption. In response, the mayor recessed the meeting, and the city council then reconvened in a separate adjoining room. The city council invited press members into the separate room, but the room was too small to accommodate members of the public. The public was able to view proceedings via video.
Litigation Proceedings
The Alliance filed its lawsuit, arguing the City's actions violated the Brown Act. The City disputed the allegations and argued that the Alliance failed to state a claim under the Brown Act. The trial court granted the City's demurrer, dismissing the action. The Court of Appeal found the Alliance did state a valid Brown Act claim against the City. The Court reversed the dismissal and returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, including a potential trial.
Court's Holding
This dispute turns on Government Code section 54957.9, which provides, in part:
In the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. . . .
After considering the plain statutory text as well as the open government policies underlying the Brown Act, the Court concluded that section 54957.9 requires the governing body to order the room cleared when faced with disruptive behavior, and it can then continue proceedings in the same location with members of the press present. The Berkeley City Council erred in (1) not ordering the room cleared and (2) proceeding in a separate room.
The Court did not address whether the city council could have proceeded after adjourning the meeting pursuant to Government Code section 54955 or whether the city council could have proceeded in a different location after declaring the existence of an emergency pursuant to Government Code section 54956.5. The City did not purport to rely on either of these statutory provisions. The Court also declined to rule on whether the city council must first attempt to remove only the disruptive individuals before resorting to excluding all of the public from the meeting.
Thus, the Court concluded: "(1) recessing a meeting and reconvening it in another room without members of the public who were attending the meeting is not ordering the original meeting room cleared; and (2) section 54957.9 does not itself authorize the relocation of a meeting."
What This Means For You
This case emphasizes the importance of closely following the provisions of the Brown Act when person(s) disrupt a public entity's board meeting or a city council meeting. Before excluding the public, the board must order the room cleared and can then reconvene in the same location rather than a separate room. A showing that the board attempted to remove the disruptive individual or individuals could also be helpful. Finally, in the alternative, a board might be able to adjourn the meeting and notice a new date or location under section 54955 or move the meeting to a different location if it determines an emergency exists under section 54956.5.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
