Friday, January 16, 2026
Page 1
S.C. Decision Not to Depublish Brown Act Case Prompts Groban to Urge Clarifying Legislation
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court yesterday publicly posted a Jan. 14 order denying depublication of a Court of Appeal opinion holding that a city council may, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, exclude all spectators from a meeting in light of the presence of disruptors but is without authority to adjourn to another room, triggering a concurring statement from Justice Joshua P. Groban calling for clarifying legislation.
Granting review on the Supreme Court’s own motion was ruled out, leaving undisturbed the Sept. 30 opinion from Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal interpreting Government Code §54957.9, a portion of the Brown Act. That section provides:
“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.”
It specifies that “[r]epresentatives of the press...shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section.”
Presiding Justice Tracie L. Brown authored the opinion for the intermediate appellate court, saying:
“The statute’s plain language… allows members of a legislative body to command that the room in which the meeting is taking place be emptied of its occupants or freed from its obstructions. Recessing a meeting and reconvening it in another room is not ordering the meeting room be emptied of its occupants or obstructions.”
Her opinion reversed a judgment of dismissal by the Alameda Superior Court of an lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of action by the Berkeley City Council in moving three meetings to a conference room.
Depublication was sought on Nov. 25 by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. They argued that “ordering that a meeting be relocated to a different room is the functional equivalent of clearing the original meeting room” and that local legislative bodies should be forced to choose between cancelling a meeting or contending with rowdies.
Depublication Not Warranted
Groban wrote:
“While I express no definitive view on the merits of that question, I do not find the court’s interpretation, which tracks the plain language of the statute, to be implausible or clearly wrong….I agree with my colleagues that depublication is unwarranted.
“I am, however, sympathetic to the concerns that the City of Berkeley and its amicus curiae have raised in these proceedings. It seems entirely reasonable that a legislative body would have legitimate concerns that attempting to clear a room of unruly members of the public could create a dangerous situation for attendees and government officials alike. Moreover, it is unclear what is to be gained by requiring the legislative body to remove (forcibly if necessary) the public from the original meeting room rather than allowing it to take the less confrontational approach of simply continuing the session in an adjacent room with the press present.”
More Likely Choice
He continued:
“Compelling the legislative body to physically remove every person from the room—including those engaged in disruptive behavior—seems more likely to force the body to choose instead to simply adjourn the meeting altogether, which is a resolution that serves no one. So why not provide the legislative body with an option that avoids the specter of physical confrontation? Those concerns seem particularly acute for smaller agencies that may lack the resources to safely clear the public from the original meeting room.
“…I would encourage the Legislature to consider clarifying whether, when faced with a willful, widespread disruption, a legislative body’s only option for carrying on the meeting is to order the public to be physically removed from the hearing.”
The case is Berkeley City Alliance v. City of Berkeley, S294106.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company