- “This case is about criminalizing political dissent.” – San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Nuha Abusamra
SAN FRANCISCO — More than a year after 26 pro-Palestine activists shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in a nonviolent demonstration calling for an end to Israel’s war in Gaza, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office continues to pursue felony conspiracy charges against seven of them — a move public defenders and civil rights advocates describe as an extraordinary case of political overreach.
The April 2024 protest briefly halted morning traffic across the bridge as demonstrators chained themselves to vehicles and held banners denouncing what they called genocide in Gaza.
The action, while disruptive, was part of a coordinated day of protest across the Bay Area demanding a ceasefire.
Most local prosecutors treated similar demonstrations elsewhere as low-level misdemeanors, often diverting them or dismissing them entirely, sources told the Vanguard.
But San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins took a sharply different approach, charging the “Golden Gate 26” with dozens of counts each, including conspiracy and false imprisonment.
Eight of the protesters were initially accused of felony conspiracy, trespassing, obstruction, refusal to disperse, and 38 counts of false imprisonment. Eighteen others faced misdemeanor versions of the same charges.
San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Nuha Abusamra, whose office represents two of those charged, said the prosecution’s approach is “new territory” for San Francisco.
“Charging people with felonies for a protest like this speaks volumes because it’s overcharged, and it shows the fact that it’s a political prosecution because of the subject matter around Gaza and the genocide that’s happening by the Israeli regime,” she said. “Nobody has been charged for felony conspiracy like this. All of our civil disobedience cases in San Francisco are usually charged as misdemeanors and then eventually diverted. So that’s what makes this interesting.”
Abusamra said prosecutors are essentially charging the activists with “conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor,” an extremely rare move in protest-related cases. The underlying allegation — false imprisonment — is normally charged as a misdemeanor, but Jenkins’ office elevated it to a felony on the theory that organizing the protest itself amounted to a criminal conspiracy.
Observers say this approach transforms an act of civil disobedience into a serious felony, exposing participants to years in prison for what would typically result in a short diversion program.
“It’s a felony conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor,” one attorney familiar with the case noted, describing it as a dangerous precedent that blurs the line between organizing a protest and committing a violent offense.
Meanwhile, a separate and highly unusual battle is unfolding over restitution. The Golden Gate Bridge District has demanded $162,554 from the protesters, claiming lost toll revenue during the hours traffic was stopped. This is the first time in the bridge’s history that such restitution has been sought following a protest-related disruption.
Abusamra criticized the restitution claim as baseless.
“It’s not a damage, it’s just basically the money that they lost from the tolls during the delay,” she said. “What’s interesting though is, of course, those cars had to cross at some point, so the Golden Gate Bridge still collected the tolls, but it just was delayed.”
A restitution hearing for the misdemeanor defendants is scheduled for November 7.
For the seven protesters facing felony charges, the focus now turns to trial preparation. Their attorneys argue that the prosecution’s theory — a felony conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor act of civil disobedience — has no precedent in San Francisco and sets a chilling tone for future protests.
“This case is about criminalizing political dissent,” Abusamra said. “It’s overcharging, plain and simple.”
The demonstration took place on Tax Day 2024, one of several coordinated protests nationwide highlighting U.S. complicity in Israel’s assault on Gaza. At that time, the Gaza Ministry of Health reported more than 30,000 Palestinian deaths.
In announcing the charges, Jenkins said, “While we must protect avenues for free speech, the exercise of free speech cannot compromise public safety. The demonstration on the Golden Gate Bridge caused a level of safety risk, including extreme threats to the health and welfare of those trapped, that we as a society cannot ignore or allow.”
California Highway Patrol officials backed the decision, claiming the blockade endangered motorists and delayed emergency services. “Regardless of the message, blocking roadways is not only illegal, but also dangerous for protesters, motorists, and first responders,” said CHP Chief Don Goodbrand.
Civil rights advocates, however, call the case a politically motivated prosecution inconsistent with San Francisco’s long history of tolerance for civil disobedience. They note that prosecutors in neighboring Alameda County under DA Pamela Price declined to file similar charges for other Gaza-related protests.
“This attack on the Golden Gate 26 has dragged on for more than 1.5 years. It is not only a clear waste of taxpayers’ money, but bolsters Trump’s authoritarian crackdown on activists,” said River, one of the defendants. “San Francisco should be defending the right to protest, not playing into Trump’s hand.”
The restitution demand remains a central point of contention. Critics say it effectively turns a public bridge into a private enterprise, imposing a “protest tax” on demonstrators for the temporary loss of toll revenue — even though those tolls were eventually collected once the bridge reopened.
For now, most of the misdemeanor defendants remain in diversion, pending resolution of the restitution issue. The seven facing felonies continue to prepare for trial, while supporters and legal advocates plan to rally at the Golden Gate Bridge Welcome Center on October 24, urging the bridge’s Board of Directors to drop what they call an “unprecedented protest tax” and for the DA to dismiss the felony charges.
The outcome of the case may determine whether San Francisco’s reputation as a city tolerant of civil disobedience survives the current political climate.
As an attorney put it, “If this prosecution succeeds, every organized act of protest could be treated as a criminal conspiracy.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Sorry, you can have your political dissent but when your protest causes others harm and the loss of money you have to pay the price
We will see
All the stuff I said in the last article on this subject. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Go Brooke, SHISH BOOM BAH !!!
From article: “It is not only a clear waste of taxpayers’ money, but bolsters Trump’s authoritarian crackdown on activists,” said River, one of the defendants.”
(I see that one of the defendants, at least, STILL hasn’t learned anything – nor is taking any responsibility. I do wish that I was eligible to serve on a potential jury, in regard to a case like this. At least make the defense “use up” one of their automatic jury dismissals on me – though I would honestly tell the court that I could make a judgement based on the law. And who knows, maybe I’d “slip through” their system designed to eliminate someone like me.)
Interesting how there are larger groups who have blocked the Oakland Bay Bridge and engaged in so-called sideshows. These are planned conspiracies to commit misdemeanors yet only tickets are issued if any at all. Political. Purely Political.