SB 1100: Brown Act Removal Process, Warnings, and Limits

California’s SB 1100, signed by Governor Newsom on August 22, 2022, lets the person chairing a local government meeting remove an individual who is disrupting the proceedings, but only after issuing a warning and giving the person a chance to stop.¹ The law added Section 54957.95 to the Ralph M. Brown Act and gives presiding officers a targeted tool that was missing before: they can eject one disruptive person without clearing the whole room or shutting down public comment.²

What Counts as Disruption

The statute defines “disrupting” as behavior during a meeting that actually disrupts, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting.² The word “actually” matters. A chair cannot remove someone for being rude, loud, or sharply critical of the board. The conduct has to have a concrete effect on the meeting’s ability to go forward.

The law gives two examples of qualifying conduct, though it isn’t limited to them:

Refusing to follow lawful meeting rules the body has adopted under Section 54954.3, such as time limits per speaker or rules against raising off-agenda topics, after being asked to comply.³
Use of force, or a true threat of force. The statute defines a true threat as one with enough indicators of seriousness that a reasonable observer would perceive it as an actual threat rather than heated rhetoric.²

The practical test is functional. Shouting over other speakers so testimony can’t be heard, banging on furniture, or blocking the podium all impede the meeting. An unpopular opinion delivered in a raised voice does not automatically qualify just because board members dislike hearing it. Can the meeting actually continue? That is the question.

The Warning Requirement

Before ordering anyone removed, the presiding member or their designee must issue a warning. The warning has to communicate two specific things: that the person’s behavior is disrupting the meeting, and that failing to stop may result in removal.² After the warning, the person must get a chance to stop. Only continued disruption triggers removal.

This is a real procedural step, not a formality. Skipping it, or delivering it so quietly the person cannot hear it, undermines the legal basis for whatever happens next. The warning should be clear, direct, and on the record.

There is one exception. The warning requirement does not apply when the behavior involves the use of force or a true threat of force. In that situation, the presiding member can order immediate removal.² Outside of force or threats, though, the warning step is mandatory.

How the Removal Is Carried Out

If the person does not promptly stop after being warned, the presiding member or designee orders them to leave. The statute uses the phrase “remove, or cause the removal of,” which means law enforcement or security personnel can be directed to escort the person out if they refuse to go on their own.²

Only the individual causing the disruption is removed. Other attendees, reporters, and anyone else who wants to watch stays put. This is the key practical difference from the older power under Section 54957.9, which lets the body clear the entire room and continue in session on agenda items only when a group makes the meeting impossible to conduct.⁴ SB 1100 gives chairs a less drastic option to try first.

The statute doesn’t say whether a removed person may return later in the same meeting or watch from a hallway monitor. That gray area is left to each agency’s own rules.

First Amendment Limits and Viewpoint Neutrality

Public meetings are limited public forums under federal law. The government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, but it cannot suppress speech because of the speaker’s viewpoint. SB 1100’s “actually” disrupts standard was written with that line in mind.

The Ninth Circuit drew the line in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, striking down a Costa Mesa ordinance that prohibited “disorderly, insolent, or disruptive behavior” because it reached conduct that didn’t actually disturb or impede the meeting. Only conduct whose actual impact substantially impairs the meeting’s progress crosses the constitutional threshold.⁵ A city cannot label any rule violation a “disturbance” and use that label to eject people.

Enforcement must also be viewpoint neutral. A chair who tolerates shouting from supporters of a project but removes a critic using the same volume and tone has not applied the law neutrally. The restriction has to target the behavior, not the message.

Which Meetings and Bodies the Law Covers

Section 54957.95 applies to every “legislative body” of a “local agency” under the Brown Act’s definitions. That includes city councils, county boards of supervisors, and the governing boards of school districts and special districts, along with commissions, committees, and advisory bodies those governing boards create by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action, provided the subordinate body is either a standing committee or a decisionmaking body. It also reaches certain delegated-authority entities and lessees of hospitals leased under Health and Safety Code Section 32121 when they exercise material delegated authority.

Advisory committees made up solely of legislative body members and numbering fewer than a quorum are generally excluded, unless they are standing committees with ongoing jurisdiction or a fixed meeting schedule.⁶ The physical location of the meeting doesn’t change the analysis. A rented community center and a formal council chamber get treated the same.

Criminal Exposure for the Person Removed

Being removed is not itself a crime, but the behavior that leads to removal, or the refusal to leave, can be charged separately.

Penal Code Section 403 makes it a misdemeanor to willfully disturb or break up any lawful meeting.⁷ Under Penal Code Section 19, a misdemeanor without a specified penalty carries up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.⁸ The charge focuses on the disruption itself and does not require that the person was first asked to leave.

Penal Code Section 602 covers trespassing when someone refuses to leave a property after being lawfully ordered to do so by the owner, agent, or a peace officer acting at their request.⁹ Ignoring a removal order and refusing to leave when directed by security or police can bring a trespass charge on top of the underlying disruption. Standard misdemeanor trespass also carries up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Charges are uncommon for ordinary meeting disruptions. Most situations end with the person leaving after a warning or being escorted out. The exposure is real, though, for anyone who physically resists removal or returns after being ejected.

Civil Liability When Removal Is Misused

A person removed from a public meeting in violation of their constitutional rights can sue the presiding officer, the legislative body, or both under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the federal civil rights statute that creates a remedy when someone acting under government authority deprives a person of their constitutional rights.¹⁰ A successful suit can produce compensatory damages, nominal damages when a right was violated without monetary harm, and in egregious cases, punitive damages. Municipal liability is possible when the removal flowed from an official policy, custom, or inadequate training.

Officials sued personally often raise qualified immunity, which shields them unless the right violated was clearly established at the time. After Acosta, the requirement that behavior must actually disrupt before removal is well established in the Ninth Circuit. An officer who removes someone for expressing an unpopular view, with no actual disruption, has a hard time arguing the line wasn’t clear.⁵

Followed carefully, SB 1100’s structured process protects presiding officers as much as it constrains them. A chair who issued a clear warning, gave the person a chance to stop, and ordered removal only after continued disruption has a strong record if the removal is later challenged. The officials most at risk are the ones who skip the steps or apply the rules selectively.

1
California Legislative Information. SB 1100 Open Meetings: Orderly Conduct
2
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 54957.95
3
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 54954.3
4
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 54957.9
5
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa
6
California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 54952
7
California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 403
8
California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 19
9
California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 602
10
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights