Idaho judge gives Boise protesters legal victory

An Idaho judge on Thursday awarded pro-Palestinian protesters at the U.S. Capitol a legal victory, blocking the state of Idaho in most cases from removing tents or seizing property from the ongoing demonstration, according to court documents.

The protest, known as the People’s Liberated University, began in early May, around the time that protests were taking place at universities across the country over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The demonstration was initially protected by a 2014 ordinance stemming from the Occupy Boise protests that allowed token tents.

Click to resize

A federal judge ruled in May that the protesters must file a new lawsuit. The state filed a lawsuit a day later, accusing the protesters of damaging grass, smoking outside designated areas and marking and blocking sidewalks in violation of Idaho law, according to earlier reporting in the Statesman.

Since then, the two sides have disagreed over what constitutes camping, to what extent the First Amendment applies, and what should happen during periods of scheduled lawn maintenance.

“The outcome here protects the First Amendment rights of the people demonstrating at PLU,” Casey Parsons, an attorney for the protesters, said in a statement. “We look forward to the Court continuing to uphold the rights of the protesters there.”

The Idaho Department of Administration, whose director filed the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Judge Jonathan Medema said it was unlikely the state could prove anyone was camping there. The state also failed to show the tents would cause “irreparable harm,” so Medema decided not to grant an injunction based on saving the lawn.

“The evidence shows that the grass is trampled in some areas and thinning in other areas,” Medema said in a memorandum decision and order. “The court is not convinced that the grass will be irreparably damaged.”

Medema also wrote that there was no evidence that anyone was in danger. Two of the protesters were rude to law enforcement, the memo said, but have the right to do so under the First Amendment.

On the other hand, it is likely that someone will be able to prove that the Idaho State Police seized property outside the authorized area, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the memorandum said. However, Medema wrote that he was not sure whether the defendants themselves would be successful, since none of them have said which properties are theirs.

“The videos show that on at least two occasions, police seize property without first citations for camping, without telling the ticketed person to remove their property and giving them an opportunity to do so, and seizing property that appears to be under surveillance,” the memo states. “In one video, Defendant Manwill attempts to remove property and Lt. Kish prevents her from doing so, apparently so the property can then be seized.”

The protesters were prepared to leave the lawn, the memo said. However, when they were elsewhere on the Capitol grounds, Idaho State Police told them they were blocking entrances and exits. The court will require the state to designate an area where the protest can continue during lawn maintenance periods.

Medema denied a request from protesters to require Idaho State Police to inventory all seized property shortly after it is seized.

“This court knows very little about the message of the protesters. … But in general terms, the ability to protest on a particular day and have your message heard by whoever happens to be passing by on that particular day, once denied, is something you never get back,” Medema wrote. “That is sufficient in this context to show irreparable harm.”

This story was originally published July 27, 2024 6:24 PM.