UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARY HUDDLE, et. al.,
            Plaintiffs,

          v.                     Civil Action No. 88-3130 
                                 Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al.,
             Defendants.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, defendants' opposition thereto, testimony and evidence presented by all parties during a hearing in open Court on March _, 1991, the Court finds that plaintiffs have convincingly shown that:

1) Each plaintiff had maintained a certain set of signs in Lafayette Park on a daily basis -- in the case of plaintiff intervenor Love, for several months, in the case of the other plaintiffs years -- and as such, plaintiffs' signs represent the status quo ante bellum.

2) On separate occasions between January 24th and February 3, 1991, each plaintiff suffered the seizure of their literature and/or one or more signs -- all of which had been in Lafayette Park on a round-the-clock basis for years, in the case of plaintiff Love, for months -- by agents of the Park Police.

3) As a result of those seizures plaintiffs have essentially been deprived of their ability to demonstrate, as defined in 36 C.F.R. 7.96 (g)(l), in Lafayette Park.

4) Defendants have threatened plaintiffs with arrest --and have actually effected questionable arrests of some plaintiffs and others in the immediate presence of other plaintiffs -- under color of the legitimate "camping" regulation. Defendants' threats and arrests have been based solely on the authority of a clearly discernible diminishing amount of time to delineate "sleeping" as the primary component of "camping."

5) Defendants are unable to articulate any harm attributable to plaintiffs' signs or literature in the Park, nor were defendants able to show any compelling, much less legitimate, interest for suppressing plaintiffs' continuous presence ("vigils") in the Park.

The Court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated a need for balance in restoring the status quo ante bellum, and a likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their claim. Defendants have failed to show that the requested Order will result in any adversity to them, and the public interest clearly lies in holding government agencies and agents accountable to the requirements of the law.

Therefore, it is, this day of March, 1991, hereby,

ORDERED that defendants are temporarily restrained from again seizing or removing from Lafayette Park the same sign which was seized from plaintiff Song on January 26, 1991, and

it is further ORDERED that defendants are temporarily restrained from again seizing or removing from Lafayette Park the same signs and literature -- or comparable literature --which were seized from plaintiffs Concepcion Picciotto and William Thomas on February 2, 1991, and

it is further ORDERED that defendants are temporarily restrained from again seizing or removing from Lafayette Park the same signs and literature -- or comparable literature --which were seized from plaintiffs Ellen Thomas and William Thomas on February 3, 1991, and

it is further ORDERED

that defendants are temporarily restrained from again seizing or removing from Lafayette Park the same signs and literature -- or comparable literature -- which

2

were seized from plaintiff intervenor Karin Love Cartwright on February 2nd and February 11, 1991, and

it is further ORDERED

that defendants return the aforementioned signs and literature to plaintiffs in Lafayette Park, and

it is finally ORDERED that the Park Police and other Government agents are temporarily restrained to the following definitions in administering the "camping" regulation:

a) "Camping" does not mean "casual sleep" (SEE 36 CFR 7.96 (i)(2), compare Federal Register, June 4, 1982, Vol. 47, No. 108, p. 24301).

b) "Casual sleep" means sleep which occurs without resulting in demonstrable damage to park lands, and shall not constitute probable cause under 36 CFR 9.76(i)(1).

c) "Impacts which the area cannot sustain" means impacts which demonstrably exceed those of similar activities engaged in by other private parties or the Government.

d) "Property" does not include signs, literature, literature trays, sound amplification, video equipment, musical instruments, or a reasonable number of tools required for the maintenance or protection of the foregoing. Nor does it include protective plastic, rainwear, and other items necessary to protect plaintiffs' persons from the elements during their

3

demonstration, or the other items listed on the permit application published at Thomas v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 702, 712, 716.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO:

Jay B. Stevens, U.S. Attorney
Judiciary Square
555 4th Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20001

Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008

William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001