State of Idaho argues against pro-Palestinian protesters

BOISE — A protest, deemed the “People’s Liberated University,” has been taking place on the lawn in front of the old Ada County Courthouse since the start of May.

While not made up exclusively of students, it was originally tied to student activism that has been taking place throughout the United States in response to the Israel-Hamas war. The protest in Boise, which has predominantly been held adjacent to the Idaho State Capitol, was in response to Israel’s invasion of the Palestinian territories following Hamas’ attack on Israel last October. Generally, protests nationwide have been in opposition to support the United States government has provided Israel during this time.

While the Boise protest was originally protected by a permanent injunction that allowed symbolic tents for protest, the injunction was overturned in late May and the state of Idaho filed a lawsuit against the protesters the next day.

During Monday’s hearing, the first one since the lawsuit was filed, the court was asked whether restrictions could be placed upon the protesters until the lawsuit reaches its conclusion.

The suit primarily concerns issues of First Amendment protections as well as a question asked by defense attorney Casey Parsons.

“What exactly is camping?” Parsons asked.

Both parties referred to Idaho Code 67-1613 , which stipulates that the Capitol Mall and other state property or facilities cannot be used as a camping ground. The code, which includes stipulation of what can be considered to be signs of camping, is as follows:

…the term ‘camp’ or ‘camping’ means to use as a temporary or permanent place of dwelling, lodging or living accommodation, and which indicia of camping may include, but are not limited to, storing personal belongings, using tents or other temporary structures for storing personal belongings or for sleeping, carrying on cooking activities, laying out bedding or making any fire.

Plaintiff attorney Greg Woodard said that items such as cases of water, heaters and sleeping bags were found to be present on grounds of the protest.

“What they’re really looking for, your honor, is convenience,” Woodard said.

Woodard made clear that the state’s position was not that the protesters should have their acceptable hours of protest restricted; they would be permitted to continue to access the Capitol lawn “all night long if they want,” but that their personal effects could not also be laid out on the lawn.

Woodard also said that protesters could even carry their tents like signs during the evening and morning hours so long as they weren’t on the ground.

Judge Jonathan Medema put forth whether a fine, akin to a speeding ticket, could be levied for those willing to engage in civil acts of disobedience. Woodard argued that a ticketing approach would not be enough.

“We’ve tried warning, we’ve tried citing and that hasn’t done anything,” Woodard said.

Woodard argued that the state is not seeking to throw the protesters in jail; rather they are seeking injunctive relief, which would restrain the protesters from acting outside of certain bounds, until the lawsuit has concluded.

“We’ve never refused to allow them to have some access on the lawn during the day,” Woodard said, adding that the protesters would retain the ability to have access to the lawn 24/7, even if the request for injunctive relief is authorized by the court.

Medema said that an injunction, especially a temporary one, is generally rare and only issued under limited circumstances where a party has high likelihood of doing “irreparable harm” if not issued during a pending lawsuit.

The defendants, who acknowledged that the state had the right to request that the demonstrators move in order to allow the lawn to be properly maintained, argued that there was a fundamental issue of viewpoint discrimination.

The First Amendment protects against viewpoint-based discrimination by prohibiting action to be taken against particular speech on the basis of the content of that speech.

In Parsons’ argument that viewpoint discrimination was at play, she said that she was not aware of other instances where certain types of property had been seized in similar protests and argued that Capitol Police failed to show where ingress or egress had been blocked on the Capitol Building steps when ordering protesters to move to another area of the Capitol lawn.

Parsons also argued that the state had repeatedly failed to make specific allegations about certain activity, and instead frequently relied on generalized allegations against a whole group.

Parsons said that fundamentally, people cannot be prevented from having a “camp-city protest” on the Capitol Mall.

Parsons said that protesters would be looking for the injunction ruling to provide a “guidepost” for how the protesting can continue during the night without “further harassment from the Capitol Police.”