Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal Over Spokane’s ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Resolution
The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the lawsuit over Spokane’s domestic terrorist resolution against Matthew Shea.
Why it matters: This case probes the constitutional limits of municipal resolutions publicly labeling individuals as threats, raising risks for local governments and public officials in managing politically charged speech under the law.
- Spokane City Council passed Resolution 2023-0081 on Sept. 25, 2023, labeling Matthew Shea a 'domestic terrorist'.
- Shea alleges the resolution violates his constitutional rights, including an unlawful bill of attainder—government legislative punishment without a trial.
- A federal district court allowed the bill of attainder claim to proceed, rejecting dismissal by the city.
- The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in October 2023; a decision is pending.
- A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes a specific individual without judicial trial, prohibited by the Constitution.
On September 25, 2023, the Spokane City Council passed Resolution 2023-0081 by a 4-3 vote, formally condemning former state Representative Matthew Shea as an “identified domestic terrorist.” This followed public controversy involving Shea and other local figures.
Shea, who served in Washington's 4th district from 2009 to 2021, filed suit against the City of Spokane and four council members, arguing the resolution violated constitutional protections—including the prohibition on bills of attainder, which are legislative acts that impose punishment on particular individuals without a judicial trial.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed many claims but allowed Shea’s bill of attainder claim to proceed, determining that the resolution’s public branding could be seen as punitive legislative action.
The City contended the resolution was protected government speech expressing criticism, not punishment. Zach Pekelis, attorney for Spokane, argued, “A legislative resolution does not inflict punishment within the meaning of the bill of attainder clauses simply because it criticizes a public official.”
In contrast, Shea’s lead counsel Christopher Hogue called the resolution “one of the most egregious attainders in this country’s history,” asserting the council effectively punished Shea without due process.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on October 26, 2023, focusing on whether municipal resolutions can constitute unconstitutional legislative punishment. The outcome will clarify the constitutional boundaries between government expression and unlawful punishment.
Legal professionals advising public officials and municipal bodies should monitor this case closely, as it highlights potential liability risks when government entities issue politically charged resolutions labeled as punitive.
Additional reporting and context are available from The Spokesman-Review and Courthouse News.
By the numbers:
- 4-3 vote — Spokane City Council approved Resolution 2023-0081
- Sept. 25, 2023 — Date resolution passed
- Oct. 26, 2023 — Date Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments
- 2009-2021 — Shea’s tenure as state Representative
Yes, but: The City frames the resolution as protected political speech, emphasizing that criticism alone does not equate to unconstitutional punishment under bill of attainder doctrine.
What's next: The Ninth Circuit will issue a ruling on the appeal, which could set precedent on limits of municipal resolutions as legislative punishment.