But according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in March, the First Amendment rights of protesters are being unconstitutionally proscribed by St. Paul’s parade permit policies. Next week, U.S. District Court Judge Joan Ericksen is slated to hear arguments in the case filed by The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. The suit charges that the group’s free speech rights are being violated by the city’s refusal to issue a parade permit laying out exactly when and where the protesters will be allowed to march on the first day of the convention.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction ordering the city to issue a permit immediately, along with a ruling that St. Paul’s current policy is unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The city is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed and denies that its guidelines run afoul of the Constitution.

St. Paul issued a “conditional alternative permit” to the group in March, but it lacks explicit guidance on when and where the protesters will be allowed to assemble. Assistant Police Chief Matt Bostrom, who is overseeing security for the convention, has promised to supply a detailed permit by the end of this month that will allow protesters to gather within “sight and sound” of the Xcel center.

But organizers are skeptical of that commitment. “We’ve heard a lot from the city about what they plan on doing,” says Teresa Nelson, an attorney with the Minnesota Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union who is working on the case. “Time really is of the essence.”

St. Paul Police Department spokesman Tom Walsh says city policy is not to comment on pending litigation. “It’s a legal action against the city,” he notes. “We can’t say anything.”

This is so far the only lawsuit pending relating to RNC protest activities. But the ACLU and other concerned parties are closely monitoring the actions of surrounding municipalities. Earlier this week, the city of Bloomington postponed voting on a beefed-up protest ordinance after the civil liberties group wrote a letter questioning the constitutionality of the proposal. On Wednesday, the Minneapolis City Council debated an essentially voluntary protest permit policy, whereby groups would be encouraged to notify the city about large demonstrations, but wouldn’t be subject to any penalties if they fail to adhere.Four years ago in Boston, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were assured that they would be permitted to assemble within earshot of the FleetCenter. But organizers discovered just a week before the convention was slated to begin that the “demonstration zone” was to be a fenced-in area surrounded by razorwire that more closely resembled a prison courtyard. A federal judge, John Woodcock, described it as a “grim, mean, and oppressive space,” as well as an “offense to the spirit of the First Amendment.” But he declined to legally mandate changes to the arrangement because there wasn’t sufficient time to come up with a safe, viable alternative.

Lawyers for the St. Paul protest organizers fear that they will get caught in a similar legal limbo. “When the city says we’re using the Boston model, to me that’s delay, delay, delay until it’s too late for a court to vindicate First Amendment rights,” Nelson says.

The SPPD’s Walsh believes the Boston analogy is wrongheaded. “We have assured them that no later than May 31st there will be a parade route,” he says. “I just don’t think there are parallels.”

The litigation has brought forth some interesting nuggets of information about planning for the convention. In an affidavit, Bostrom states that the Police Department will supplement its force of approximately 600 officers with an additional 2,500 cops from various law enforcement agencies during the four-day gathering.

The city attorney’s office also submitted a legal exhibit featuring protest plans drafted by the activist group Students for a Democratic Society. Dated March 28, the document lays out designs to blockade the Xcel center, immobilize buses, obstruct area bridges–and ultimately shut down the RNC. “I’m not exactly sure what their motives are in providing that information,” says Nelson. “That kind of caught my eye.”

Nelson insists her clients plan to protest Republican policies and the war in Iraq through legal and nonviolent actions. “We’ve always been kind of frustrated that the City has not been more forthright and willing to work with this group that clearly does not want to engage in illegal activity,” she says.