Nawiliwili protesters lose appeal against Coast Guard security zone

This was the case against the Coast Guard security zone filed in federal district court by local anti-Superferry demonstrators Megan Wong, Noelle Wong, Ka’iulani Edens; Jesse Brownclay, Marcia Sacco, Wendy Raebeck, Jeff Sacher, Lea Taddonio, Richard Coon; Andrea Brower, Fabienne Christe, Kamei Trinque, Fern Anuenue Holland, Jay H. Taylor, Star Newland, Barbara Wiedner, Lee Tepley, Paul Doubleday Massey; David Richard Mireles, Michial Freigang, Jonathan Jay and Cory (Martha) Harden. They were represented by Lanny Sinkin.

They had filed a motion for declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction, contending that by establishing the security zone to enable the HSF to dock at Nawiliwili Harbor, the Coast Guard violated their First Amendment right to free speech, NEPA, and the federal statutes which govern "the Coast Guard’s authority to create security zones safeguarding United States waters and harbors."

About the First Amendment claim, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said -

[W]e disagree that the rule establishing the security zone violates Appellants’ First Amendment rights. Some forms of conduct are protected as symbolic speech, but the Supreme Court has “extended First Amendment protection only to conduct that is inherently expressive.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 126 S.Ct. 1297, 1310 (2006). To the extent Appellants’ blockade in protest of the HSF constitutes symbolic speech, the rule establishing the security zone is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). The rule is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest, and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. See Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1128-43 (9th Cir. 2005). Alternatively, if Appellants’ blockade is conduct that does not constitute symbolic speech, it is not protected by the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982) (finding certain conduct unprotected because “[t]he First Amendment does not protect violence.”); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554-55 (1965) (“A group of demonstrators could not insist upon the right to cordon off a street, or entrance to a public or private building, and allow no one to pass who did not agree to listen to their exhortations.”).

It's a short decision. The rest of it is worth a read if you're interested in the issue.

Thanks to inversecondenmation.com for the heads up about this decision.