Reported / Citable
Background
The Berkeley People’s Alliance and other plaintiffs sued the City of Berkeley alleging Brown Act violations at three Berkeley City Council meetings in late 2023 and early 2024. At each meeting, the mayor concluded that disruption from members of the audience made it impossible to conduct council business and that order could not be restored by removing the disruptive individuals.
Rather than ordering the meeting room cleared and continuing the meeting there as Government Code section 54957.9 contemplates, the council recessed each meeting and reconvened in a different, smaller room. Press representatives could attend in person; the public could attend by video. The smaller room could not accommodate all the nondisruptive members of the public who had been present in the original room.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed. The court read section 54957.9 as authorizing a specific, limited remedy when a meeting is willfully interrupted and order cannot be restored — the legislative body ‘may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session.’ The statute does not authorize the alternative path the council chose: recessing and reconvening in a different physical location. By moving to a smaller room that could not accommodate the original audience and offering only video access to most of the public, the council departed from the statute’s text.
The court rejected the City’s argument that recessing and reconvening ‘effectively cleared’ the room. The plain language of section 54957.9 requires that the original room be cleared and that the body continue in session there, preserving in-person access for nondisruptive members of the public who can return to the cleared room. The Brown Act’s open-meetings policy is undermined when councils move sessions to inaccessible rooms in the name of restoring order.
The Supreme Court denied a depublication request and reposted the opinion with a Supreme Court order and statement.
Key Takeaways
- When a Brown Act-covered meeting is disrupted and order cannot be restored, the only authorized remedy under Government Code section 54957.9 is to clear the meeting room and continue in session there.
- Recessing and reconvening in a smaller room — even with press access — does not satisfy section 54957.9 and may violate the Brown Act.
- Video access for the public is not an adequate substitute for in-person attendance under the Brown Act’s open-meetings framework.
- Demurrers to Brown Act complaints based on alleged statutory compliance must be evaluated against the statute’s text and the open-meetings policy it serves.
- Local councils facing disruption should plan response procedures (clearing protocols, security, etc.) that allow them to continue in the original room rather than relocating.
Why It Matters
The Berkeley case provides important guidance for every California city, county, and special-district legislative body about how to lawfully respond to disrupted meetings. With protests and contentious public-comment periods on the rise, councils need clear procedures for restoring order — and this opinion makes clear that simply moving the session to a different room is not legally sufficient. Public agencies should review their disruption protocols, train clerks and security staff on the clear-and-continue procedure, and ensure their meeting rooms can practically accommodate the policy.
For open-government advocates and Brown Act plaintiffs, the decision affirms that the Act’s protections are not merely procedural; they reach the practical accessibility of meetings. Members of the public who are not part of the disruption have a right to remain in the original meeting room once it is cleared, and councils that effectively exclude them through relocation may face civil enforcement actions.