Spokane: Defends Matthew Shea Resolution, Argues No Bill of Attainder

• The City of Spokane is appealing a lower court ruling that allows former state Representative Matthew Shea's lawsuit over a City Council resolution to proceed.
• The Spokane City Council resolution, passed in 2023, labeled Shea an "identified domestic terrorist" after he appeared with then-Mayor Nadine Woodward at an event.
• Shea's lawsuit claims the resolution violated his First Amendment rights and constituted an unlawful bill of attainder, which imposes punishment without a judicial trial.
• Spokane argues the resolution is merely an expression of opinion, imposes no punishment, and therefore cannot be a bill of attainder.
• Shea was previously found by a 2019 state House investigation to have engaged in domestic terrorism, leading to his expulsion from office in 2021.

This Ninth Circuit resolution challenge highlights the delicate balance between a legislative body's freedom of expression and the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.

The City of Spokane recently presented its arguments before the Ninth Circuit, seeking to overturn a lower court's decision that requires it to face a lawsuit from former state Representative Matthew Shea. The legal challenge centers on a resolution passed by the Spokane City Council, which labeled Shea an "identified domestic terrorist." This resolution was adopted in 2023 following an event where then-Mayor Nadine Woodward appeared on stage with Shea, prompting the Council to express its disapproval of the mayor's participation.

Shea initiated legal action against Spokane and the four City Council members who voted for the resolution. His lawsuit contends that the Council's action infringed upon his First Amendment rights and constituted an unlawful bill of attainder. While the lower court dismissed the majority of Shea's claims, it determined that he had plausibly argued that the resolution functioned as a bill of attainder, thereby allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial. The city's appeal focuses on this surviving claim, asserting that the resolution, despite its critical language, does not impose any form of punishment on Shea.

Central to the Spokane City Council bill of attainder challenge is the definition of a bill of attainder: legislation that targets an individual or group, implicates them in a crime, and imposes punishment without a judicial trial. Spokane's attorney, Zach Pekelis of Pacifica Law Group, argued before the Ninth Circuit that a legislative resolution does not inflict punishment merely by criticizing a public official, especially when it imposes no affirmative disability or restraint. Pekelis emphasized that the lower court correctly identified the resolution as "toothless," regulating nothing, prescribing nothing, and compelling nothing, and recognized its nonpunitive purpose of expressing the council's collective opinion against anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.

U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith questioned the city's core position, asking if the absence of punishment meant there was no cause of action, to which the city affirmed. Shea, conversely, maintained that the resolution effectively banished him. Although the lower court found no explicit language of banishment in the resolution, it concluded that it could not definitively state there were no facts supporting Shea’s claims. The city further contended that the resolution had no such effect, served only an expressive purpose, and that the City Council members are entitled to qualified immunity, while Shea characterized the resolution as an "act of hostility."

The controversy surrounding Matthew Shea is rooted in prior findings by the Washington state House of Representatives. A 2019 investigation concluded that Shea had engaged in domestic terrorism, citing his support for separatist militia groups aiming to establish a white homeland in Washington and Idaho, and his endorsement of violence against those not adhering to fundamentalist Biblical law. These findings led to his expulsion, and he subsequently left office in 2021. Earlier, in 2017, internet chats involving Shea and three other individuals surfaced, revealing discussions about confronting "leftists" through tactics including violence, surveillance, and intimidation, which prompted Washington House Democrats to demand his reprimand for a history of far-right speech and activities.

This Ninth Circuit resolution challenge highlights the delicate balance between a legislative body's freedom of expression and the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder. The Spokane defends Matthew Shea resolution case underscores the potential for legal disputes when a governmental body uses its platform to condemn an individual, particularly when that condemnation is perceived as imposing a form of punishment or banishment. The outcome will provide further clarity on the scope of legislative resolutions and their potential to trigger constitutional challenges under the Bill of Attainder Clause.

This case highlights the fine line between a legislative body's expressive freedom and unconstitutional punishment under the Bill of Attainder Clause. Lawyers advising municipal councils or public officials should carefully consider whether resolutions, even those intended as mere expressions of disapproval, could be construed as imposing 'punishment' or 'banishment' on an individual, potentially leading to litigation and constitutional challenges.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service