Golden Gate Bridge Agency Drops $163K Restitution Claim Against Pro-Palestinian Protesters

The agency that operates the Golden Gate Bridge has withdrawn its nearly $163,000 restitution claim against activists who blocked the bridge for hours in April last year as part of a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District filed the claim to cover the estimated loss of toll revenue after protesters shut down the bridge for roughly four hours on April 15, 2024.

The claim appeared to mark the first time that bridge operators sought financial compensation for a traffic disruption, sparking accusations that the protesters were being retaliated against for their support of Palestinians and their criticism of the United States military support for Israel.

A spokesperson for the bridge district confirmed that the claim had been withdrawn but declined to comment.

On Friday morning, lawyers representing the activists announced the withdrawal in San Francisco Superior Court and said they had reached agreements with six of the nine individuals who filed restitution claims, mostly for the wages lost due to being stuck on the bridge.

Judge Brian J. Stretch ultimately found that protesters would have to collectively pay just under $5,300 to the nine people for the losses they incurred. Divided among the 16 defendants who had agreed to a diversion program, which includes paying restitution, Stretch said the total would come out to $331.16 per person.

“Individually and as a group, it’s a win for people to get cases dismissed, but it’s not a win in terms of what’s going on in the world,” said Bobbie Stein, a lawyer representing one of the protesters. “This district attorney’s office has aggressively prosecuted these cases where people were exercising their First Amendment rights, their dissent and their outrage over the genocide that’s taking place in Gaza.”

In the days immediately following the protest, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins posted to social media, encouraging people affected by the shutdown to seek potential compensation.

Activists and their supporters accused the district attorney of targeting the protesters for their support of Palestinians and using the restitution process against them. They also compared their case to Stanford pro-Palestinian protesters also facing restitution claims for barricading themselves inside the university president’s office in June last year.

“I think it is a calculated tactic to weaponize restitution, to chill people’s First Amendment rights, to chill people’s actions, to make them think, ‘No, I better not do that because I’m going to be liable for so much money. I can’t afford to exercise my rights,’” Stein said.

EmilyRose Johns, another defense attorney in the case, said the outreach from Jenkins encouraged people to be more “imaginative.”

“What happened as a result of the overzealous solicitation for individuals who have claims for restitution is that people became very creative in how they evaluated their losses and their harm,” Johns said. “What we endeavored to do in this hearing is to understand the actual economic loss that people suffered.”

The district attorney’s office declined to comment.

With the restitution claims settled, the defendants who accepted the court’s diversion offers have one less barrier left to closing their cases.

Of the 10 remaining activists who were arrested, two declined the option of diversion and opted to take their cases to trial. The remaining eight face more serious charges, including felony conspiracy, and lawyers said the closure of the restitution issue could help them as well.

Nearly a year ago, lawyers for the activists sought to reduce the felony charges to misdemeanors.

Judge Brendan P. Conroy said at the time that he might have considered downgrading the charges, but didn’t because of the restitution amount.

“I’m hoping that with the settlement of restitution claims that there won’t be a barrier to reducing the felony cases to misdemeanors,” Stein said.