Oakland A-Weapons Ban ‘Invalid’ : Court ruling: Judge decides the Bay Area city’s tough nuclear-free ordinance is unconstitutional.

Dismissing the law as “invalid on its face,” a federal judge Friday struck down Oakland’s toughest-in-the-nation nuclear-free ordinance in the first federal government challenge of a local nuclear-weapons ban.

U.S District Judge John P. Vukasin Jr. concurred with a Justice Department argument that the Oakland law unconstitutionally restricted federal officials’ ability to provide for national defense and regulate nuclear energy.

The ruling is a setback for the growing nuclear-free movement, once deemed quixotic but increasingly regarded by activists as a potent weapon for peace. Including Oakland, 169 cities in 26 states call themselves nuclear free.

Oakland’s ordinance, approved by 57% of voters in November, 1988, banned nuclear reactors and weapons facilities within city limits, forbade storage or transportation of significant quantities of nuclear materials and barred the city from contracting with companies engaged in nuclear-weapons production.

Weapons makers had complained to the federal government that the law could interfere with their ability to fulfill their contracts. The government filed suit against the city last September.

Several key facilities widely believed to house nuclear weapons or conduct weapons research--including the Oakland Army Depot, Alameda Naval Air Station and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory--either are within Oakland or are served by highways passing through the city.

Oakland City Atty. Jayne Williams said the City Council will debate Tuesday whether to appeal the decision. City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr., a mayoral candidate and vocal nuclear-ban supporter, said he was confident that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would overturn Vukasin.

“I don’t think that the judge’s decision is right, nor do I think it was researched properly,” said Riles, noting that the judge issued a summary judgment in the case and did not explain his action in a written decision. “This is a very important decision, and I think it requires more thought than he has given it.”

U.S. Atty. William T. McGivern said outside the courtroom that Vukasin had allowed nuclear-free-zone supporters to fully present their case, but then the judge simply sided with the government.

Vukasin ruled that the city cannot restrict the storage or manufacture of nuclear weapons within its borders, nor can it ban the transportation of such material on its streets. Those limits illegally interfere with the federal government’s constitutional war powers, he ruled.

The judge did not rule Friday on a second lawsuit challenging that portion of the law forbidding the city to contract with nuclear-weapons contractors, such as IBM, unless no alternative is readily available. He indicated that he will rule later, in writing, on that aspect of the case.

The conservative Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento had challenged that part of the law.

In the only win for peace activists, Vukasin conceded that the city has the right to post anti-nuclear signs at city limits and decide for itself whether to stop investing general funds and pension funds in U.S. Treasury bonds as a form of protest against nuclear weapons.

Backers of a strict new countywide initiative on the Alameda County ballot this June were surprised by the decision, but said it will not seriously hurt their efforts.

“We don’t really think it will have any impact on Measure A,” said Nicole Moore, co-director of the Alameda County NFZ Coalition. “I’m sure (Vukasin’s ruling) will be taken to a higher court and overturned. I can’t believe they can tell a local community how to provide for public safety. This has always been a matter of local control.”

“It gets down to the question . . . of what powers a local agency has, when it comes to zoning and public safety, even when the federal government is involved,” Riles said.