Page 3 - 2026 Lozano Smith Brown Act Handbook

2026 Lozano Smith Brown Act Handbook

Welcome to the 2026 edition of Lozano Smith’s Brown Act Handbook. The 2026 edition
reflects new legislation, cases, and Attorney General opinions, as well as editorial changes.
There is one significant new court case addressing disruptive meetings. In addition, the
Legislature adopted Senate Bill (“SB”) 707, which expanded alternative teleconferencing
provisions. Among a number of other specific changes addressed below, SB 707 mandates that
relatively larger cities, counties, special districts, and cities in larger counties, provide for remote
public participation at all meetings beginning July 1, 2026. Such legislative bodies must also
translate agendas, provide translation assistance, and encourage public participation. These
requirements do not apply to local educational agencies, though such agencies are included in
other provisions of SB 707.

1. California Court of Appeal Addresses Disruptions of Public Meetings.

In Berkeley People’s Alliance v. City of Berkeley (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 984, the California
First District Court of Appeal ruled that the City of Berkeley may have violated the Brown Act
when it moved several City Council meetings to smaller rooms in response to public disruptions.

The Brown Act guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local
legislative bodies, such as city councils and school boards. This right, however, is not absolute.
A legislative body has a right to remove particular members of the public disrupting a meeting,
and in some circumstances remove all members of the public.

Specifically, Government Code sections 54957.9, 54957.95, and 54957.96 provide for the
following:

• Removal of individuals who are disrupting the meeting after the individuals are warned
that failure to cease the disruption may result in their removal. This rule also applies to
members of the public attending the meeting remotely.
• If order cannot be restored by removing individuals who are causing the disruption, the
legislative body has the authority to clear the room other than representatives of the
media who are not causing the disturbance.

In the City of Berkeley case, Berkeley People’s Alliance alleged that during three city council
meetings in late 2023 and early 2024, the City recessed the meetings and reconvened them in
smaller, less accessible rooms, excluding non-disruptive members of the public. The City argued
that such relocation was permissible under Government Code section 54957.9, and the trial court
agreed, finding that section 54957.9 does not require the city council first to attempt to remove
the disruptive individuals before determining that order could not be restored by such removal.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Government Code section
54957.9 permits a meeting to continue only after “ordering the meeting room cleared,” not by

2026 Brown Act Handbook LozanoSmith.com