Oregon protesters who claim police violated their free speech rights and used excessive force during a 2020 racial justice march scored a victory Friday when a federal judge denied the city of Springfield's attempt to dismiss their lawsuit entirely.
U.S. District Judge Ann L. Aiken denied Springfield's motion for summary judgment on all claims, allowing the civil rights case to proceed to trial. The judge also granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on 16 of the defendants' affirmative defenses, largely siding with the protesters in their constitutional challenge.
The lawsuit stems from a July 29, 2020, march organized by Black Unity and individual protesters in response to George Floyd's death in Minneapolis. The demonstrators allege that Springfield police violated their First Amendment rights by blocking their march, wrongly declaring it an unlawful assembly, and using excessive force against participants.
According to the protesters' allegations, police erected a barricade during the march and ordered demonstrators to remain behind it. Officers then declared the gathering unlawful and told participants to disperse. The situation escalated when officers arrested and struck a man who stepped past the barricade to speak with police.
"Plaintiffs allege that [police] and the city used a number of impermissible tactics to 'restrict and stifle the First Amendment rights of protesters critical of police . . . and (critical of) race-related violence at the hands of law enforcement,'" Judge Aiken wrote in her ruling.
The case represents a significant test of protesters' constitutional rights during the nationwide demonstrations that followed Floyd's death in police custody. Black Unity and the individual protesters argue that Springfield police employed tactics specifically designed to chill their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.
Springfield and its officers had asked Judge Aiken to grant summary judgment on all claims, which would have ended the case without a trial. The city argued that the protesters lacked standing to bring the lawsuit and that officers had acted within their authority in managing the demonstration.
However, Judge Aiken rejected these arguments in her Friday ruling. The Clinton appointee specifically addressed several affirmative defenses raised by the defendants, finding them insufficient to warrant dismissal of the case.
The judge rejected claims that the protesters lacked standing and that officers had no duty to retreat. "'No duty to retreat' is not an affirmative defense to a § 1983 claim," Judge Aiken said, referring to the federal statute that enables people to sue government officials for violations of their constitutional rights.
The court noted that the duty to retreat concept typically applies to situations involving citizen use of deadly force, not police officer conduct. This distinction highlights the specific legal standards that apply to law enforcement actions during protests.
Judge Aiken also dismissed the city and officers' arguments that "officer safety" and "good faith" constituted valid affirmative defenses. The defendants had cited two Ninth Circuit cases—*Scott v. Henrich* (1992) and *Forrett v. Richardson* (1997)—but the judge found these citations misplaced.
"The defendants in those cases didn't claim officer safety or good faith as defenses," Judge Aiken wrote. "Instead, they argued the force used was 'objectively reasonable.'" The judge noted that Springfield's defendants could choose to make similar arguments about objective reasonableness, but such claims would not constitute affirmative defenses.
The ruling allows the protesters to proceed with their Section 1983 civil rights claims, which provide a pathway for individuals to seek damages when government officials violate their constitutional rights. These lawsuits have become increasingly common following high-profile incidents of police misconduct and concerns about law enforcement responses to protests.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between law enforcement and protesters following the 2020 nationwide demonstrations. Many cities faced similar lawsuits from demonstrators who alleged that police used excessive force or violated their constitutional rights during protests against police brutality and racial injustice.
For Springfield, the ruling means the city and its officers will face trial on the protesters' claims. The plaintiffs will need to prove that police violated their First Amendment rights through the barricade tactics, unlawful assembly declaration, and use of force against participants.
The defendants retain the right to argue that their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances, even though their initial affirmative defenses were largely rejected. This sets up a potential trial where the central issues will focus on whether police conduct was constitutionally permissible during the demonstration.
The case reflects broader national debates about the balance between public safety and constitutional rights during protests. As courts continue to address similar lawsuits from the 2020 demonstrations, Judge Aiken's ruling provides insight into how federal judges are evaluating claims of First Amendment violations by law enforcement.
The lawsuit now moves forward toward trial, where a jury will ultimately decide whether Springfield police violated the protesters' constitutional rights during the July 2020 march and what damages, if any, should be awarded to the plaintiffs.