A federal judge has declined to issue a temporary restraining order blocking San Francisco’s new public-nudity law.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled Thursday that nudists failed to present specific evidence of how the nudity ban has infringed their constitutional rights, or of why they’d be likely to succeed if the case went to trial.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors late last year adopted an ordinance barring people from baring their genitals on public streets, sidewalks, and most other public rights-of-way as well as on transit vehicles and in transit stations. Exceptions were carved out for permitted events and festivals, and for children under the age of five.

Chen in January issued an order dismissing these same nudists’ effort to keep the law from taking effect Feb. 1. His order back then sided with the city’s arguments that the constitutionality of local restrictions on public nudity has been repeatedly upheld in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and that such bans are a valid and longstanding feature of municipal codes throughout the nation.

Thursday’s ruling dealt with an “as-applied” challenge filed last week, after the law was in effect, claiming the city and its police were chilling their First Amendment rights to engage as in political speech as nudists by taking them into custody rather than writing them tickets for violating the law. The city countered that the nudists have no constitutional right to expose themselves in public.

“And Plaintiffs do not explain, much less submit any evidence demonstrating, how the ordinance prevents them from engaging in political speech or artistic expression,” Deputy City Attorney Tara Steeley wrote in the city’s brief. “Plaintiffs remain free to express any message they want. They simply must cover their ‘genitals, perineum, or anal region’ while on streets, sidewalks and certain other public places.”

Remember our story last month about San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who was nearly booted out of office last year after a misdemeanor false imprisonment conviction for an incident with his wife, helping to arrange a choreographed dance for inmates and staff at county jails on Valentine’s Day?

He had invited Dancing Without Borders – a group dedicated to “the healing and unifying power of dance and music as a ritual, community building and empowerment vehicle,” according to the group’s website – to coordinate the event in the men’s and women’s jails in conjunction with One Billion Rising, an international effort to call attention Thursday to violence against women and girls. Female inmates in the Sisters in Sober Treatment Empowered in Recovery program took part, as did male inmates in the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program.

And is there video? Yes, there is video.

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco’s new ordinance banning most public nudity, clearing the way for it to take effect this Friday.

District Judge Edward Chen’s order sided with the city’s arguments that the constitutionality of local restrictions on public nudity has been repeatedly upheld in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and that such bans are a valid and longstanding feature of municipal codes throughout the nation.

“Even though we’re not surprised by Judge Chen’s ruling, we’re gratified by an outcome that affirms established case law and preserves reasonable exceptions for permitted events,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a news release.

“Ironically, the nudism advocates’ equal protection claim raised legal questions about the validity of exceptions that the Board and Mayor approved, which allow nudity at events like Bay to Breakers and the Folsom Street Fair,” Herrera said. “The plaintiffs took an unlikely position in their case that if they couldn’t be naked everywhere, no one could be naked anywhere. We believed their legal challenge to be baseless, and we’re grateful that the court agreed.”

Chen ruled that the nudism advocates’ First Amendment-based challenge lacked merit because “public nudity alone is not expression protected by the First Amendment,” and because the ordinance was “not substantially overbroad.” He also rejected their arguments that exemptions for such permitted events such as Bay to Breakers and the Folsom Street Fair violated constitutional Equal Protection guarantees, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the exceptions lacked a rational basis.

Chen dismissed this challenge without leave to amend, but left the door open for nudism advocates to amend their pleading later with “as-applied” claims – meaning, after they’re arrested – provided they can do so.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors late last year adopted an ordinance barring people from baring their genitals on public streets, sidewalks, and most other public rights-of-way as well as on transit vehicles and in transit stations. Exceptions were carved out for permitted events and festivals, and for children under the age of five.

Nudists say they’ll descend upon San Francisco City Hall again Tuesday for the Board of Supervisors’ 2013 inaugural meeting.

Naturally, they stand ready to disrobe should Supervisor Scott Wiener – who authored the public nudity ordinance they so vociferously and visually protested last year – be elected president of the board at the noon meeting. And whether or not Wiener gets the gavel, they’re planning to be out on City Hall’s steps – or if it rains, at the Center for Sex and Culture on Mission Street – right after the meeting.

Later Tuesday, they’ll convene at the center for the release of their eBook – “Free Your Body, Free Your Mind!” – with proceeds to pay for nudist legal defense and direct action. The book contains more than 200 color photographs, they say, as well as essays and first-person accounts of “body freedom” and public nudity.

The ordinance that supervisors approved in November won’t take effect until Feb. 1, leaving time for the opponents to have their day in court. That day is coming next Thursday, Jan. 17, with a hearing at which U.S. District Judge Edward Chen will consider whether to grant the nudists an injunction against the new law.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a motion today seeking the dismissal of a federal lawsuit challenging the city’s new ban on public nudity.

The city and county’s Board of Supervisors approved the ban – which provides exceptions for certain city-permitted events and for those under the age of five – at a climactic meeting Nov. 20, and affirmed it Dec. 4.

Opponents of the ban had sued even before the ordinance was passed, claiming it would violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments. The plaintiffs originally sought a temporary restraining order to stop the supervisors from passing the law, but U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen opted instead to consider the challenge instead as a petition for a preliminary injunction, once the ordinance was enacted.

“Public nudity bans are a longstanding feature of municipal codes throughout the nation, and their constitutionality has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court,” Herrera said in a news release today.

“Ironically, the only novel legal theory plaintiffs put forward in this case is an equal protection claim that could actually undermine exceptions that allow nudity at permitted events like Bay to Breakers and the Folsom Street Fair,” he added. “The nudism advocates seem to have taken the position that if they can’t be naked everywhere, no one can be naked anywhere. Fortunately, the legal challenge is without a basis in the law, and we’re confident the court will dismiss.”

Activists who had discussed a recall of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who was convicted earlier this year of a domestic violence-related crime, instead have launched a website to gather petition signatures urging him to resign.

Fat chance.

Mayor Ed Lee suspended Mirkarimi early this year after he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment related to a New Year’s Eve altercation that left a bruise on the arm of his wife, Venezuelan former telenovela star Eliana Lopez.

Mirkarimi spent much of 2012 fighting Lee’s effort to permanently remove him from office, through a lengthy series of San Francisco Ethics Commission hearings. The commission ultimately voted 4-1 that he had committed official misconduct, but four members of the Board of Supervisors voted October 9 to reinstate him. (Removing him would’ve required nine votes from the 11-member board.) After fighting that fight, it’s unlikely a petition will convince him to quit.

Nonetheless, political consultant Andrea Shorter today unveiled a website at which San Franciscans can add their names to a call for the sheriff to step down voluntarily.

Shorter, a member of the city’s Commission on the Status of Women since 2001 and a longtime advocate for women’s issues, last month had been talking about a recall campaign, which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and require organizers to support from more than 50,000 San Franciscans in order to get on the ballot.

Though the website sets a goal of 50,000 petition signatures, Shorter made it clear Wednesday that this is merely a means of building and gauging support, and not yet an actual recall effort.

“We’re interested in him hearing clearly what the interests are of San Franciscans right now,” she told reporters on a conference call, specifying that many city residents believe it’s inappropriate for someone who’s on criminal probation to lead a law enforcement agency. “Maybe he will heed that particular call, we will know in due time.”

Shorter had spoken at the Aug. 16 session of the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s hearing, calling for Mirkarimi’s removal. “This is an issue of governance, this is an issue of public turst and our ability as a city to make sure we provide every single citizen the utmost trust and confidence in all of our officials,” she said at the time:

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera today rejected embattled Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s request that taxpayers foot the bill for lawyers he hired to defend himself against an attempt to boot him from office for official misconduct – having bruised his wife in an argument.

Mirkarimi sent a letter to Herrera dated May 15 but received just this Tuesday citing a San Francisco Charter section dealing with elected officers’ and department heads’ right to engage outside counsel in instances when the city attorney’s office has a conflict of interests.

The city attorney’s office has erected a “screen” to separate lawyers representing Mayor Ed Lee from those advising the Ethics Commission or Board of Supervisors in Mirkarimi’s misconduct hearing, the sheriff wrote, but has not carved out anyone to represent him.

“Moreover, the actions of your office thus far in these proceedings demonstrate that neither you nor anyone in your office could ethically represent me,” Mirkarimi wrote. “Without cataloging every action you have taken, suffice it to say you chose to represent the Mayor in derogation of your equally compelling legal duty to represent me.”

Not so, Herrera responded today in a letter to Mirkarimi’s lawyers.

The charter section Mirkarimi cited doesn’t apply here, in that it doesn’t require the city to provide personal representation to suspended city officers, Herrera wrote; rather, it makes clear that the city attorney’s client is the city and county, not individual elected officials. “There is simply no basis for your client’s demand for City funded representation.”

“Contrary to your client’s implication, this proceeding is not a private dispute between the Mayor and the Sheriff,” he wrote, citing a Superior Court’s recent ruling. “As the court recognized, the City Attorney’s Office represents the Mayor’s Office in the pending official misconduct proceedings, just as we continue to represent and advise the Sheriff’s Office regarding City business. This office has no conflict of interest here.”

“(T)he City does not pay for private counsel to represent employees charged with misconduct,” he concluded. “Your client’s position as an elected official is no different and does not entitle him to that personal benefit at taxpayer expense.”

Mayor Ed Lee suspended Mirkarimi, 50, after he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment related to a New Year’s Eve altercation that left a bruise on the arm of his wife, Venezuelan former telenovela star Eliana Lopez. If the Ethics Commission upholds the charges, it would take a vote of nine of 11 city and county supervisors to toss him from office.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s office, pursuing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s removal from office in an ongoing administrative misconduct hearing, today released a video in which Mirkarimi’s wife shows a neighbor a bruise that resulted from their New Year’s Eve argument.

Mirkarimi was quick to condemn the video’s public release. “The release of the video utterly violates my wife’s rights and serves no public good. It is the politics of destruction at its worst, and those who advocated its release should be ashamed.”

His wife, former Venezuelan telenovela star Eliana Lopez, said likewise:

“I am sad and hurt by the elected officials of the city of San Francisco: Mayor Lee, City Attorney Herrera, District Attorney Gascon and Judge Wong. They each have contributed to the release of the video against my wishes and allowed it to go viral. Because of their actions the images on that video will exist forever for anyone to see – including my son Theo, now and forever. My grandchildren will see the video, as well as my great grandchildren. I believe what Judge Wong, the District Attorney, the City Attorney and Mayor Lee have done to me is far worse than anything they accuse Ross of doing. I hope they realize after reflection that what they have done is irreparable and perpetually damaging to me and my family.”

Herrera told NBC Bay Area he had “no position” on the release of the video, but California law did not allow him to withhold it. The couple’s lawyers failed to convince the city’s Ethics Commission to keep it under wraps.

San Francisco’s mayor and city attorney have fired their opening salvo of documents in the pending Ethics Commission hearing against embattled, suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

Mayor Ed Lee suspended Mirkarimi, 50, after he pleaded guilty to false imprisonment related to a New Year’s Eve altercation that left a bruise on the arm of his wife, Venezuelan former telenovela star Eliana Lopez. Lee and City Attorney Dennis Herrera will be trading briefs with Mirkarimi’s lawyers in the coming weeks to set the stage for testimony on whether the sheriff should lose his job permanently; if the commission upholds the charges, it would take a vote of nine of 11 city and county supervisors to toss him from office.

The city’s 34-page opening brief outlines the official misconduct charges against Mirkarimi, alleging that he committed domestic violence, threatened to use his power as a public official against his wife in family court, took part in efforts to dissuade witnesses and destroy evidence, and so on. It lays out the city’s views on what standard of proof should apply, what kind of evidence the commission should rely upon, whether Mirkarimi can be held responsible for official misconduct that occurred before he was sworn in, whether the commission must act unanimously, and so on.

“While Sheriff Mirkarimi has contended elsewhere that these proceedings somehow undermine the democratic process, nothing could be further from the truth,” Deputy City Attorney Sherri Sokeland Kaiser wrote in the brief.

“When San Francisco voters democratically elected Sheriff Mirkarimi, they did not know and could not know that he would later engage in the behavior that led to these official misconduct proceedings,” she wrote. “That very problem is the reason why San Francisco voters democratically enacted the Charter removal provisions. The Ethics Commission advances democratic rule and fulfills its Charter mandate by following the removal process democratically established by the People themselves.”

But this isn’t a criminal court proceeding, Kaiser cautioned.

“The Mayor is seeking to remove Sheriff Mirkarimi from his office, not punish him or impose any criminal sanction,” Kaiser wrote. “Neither the Charter nor any other law requires the Commission to adopt a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof or to make its recommendation by unanimous vote. The Charter simply requires the Commission to hold a hearing, compile a record, and vote to make a recommendation as to whether to sustain the charges against Sheriff Mirkarimi.”

A separate, eight-page letter re-asserts that Mirkarimi has a duty under the city’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code and other ethics laws to cooperate with the city attorney’s investigation of his conduct, and like anyone else, must also comply with mayoral subpoenas. It also clarifies that the commission doesn’t take part in the mayor’s and city attorney’s investigation, but rather lets them serve as prosecutor while it acts as judge.

The city’s initial witness list includes Mayor Ed Lee; the two police inspectors who investigating Mirkarimi’s domestic violence case; retired Undersheriff Jan Dempsey and former Sheriff Michael Hennessey, to talk about the transition period from Mirkarimi’s November election through his Jan. 8 swearing-in; Christina Flores, Mirkarimi’s former girlfriend, who gave sworn court testimony about a previous domestic-violence incident; Eliana Lopez, Mirkarimi’s wife; Ivory Madison, the neighbor who photographed Lopez’ bruised arm and informed police; Linnette Peralta Haynes, Mirkarimi’s campaign manager, who allegedly asked Madison and Lopez not to tell police; Callie Williams, another of the Mirkarimis’ neighbors, who overheard other arguments; and others.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon today said he’s filing misdemeanor criminal charges against an airport passenger shuttle company that he says illegally funneled contributions to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee’s campaign last year.

Lorrie’s Travel & Tours Inc., better known as GO Lorrie’s, is among the larger shuttle companies serving San Francisco International Airport. Gascon said the company made $11,500 in illegal contributions to Lee’s campaign by passing the money through its drivers and staff; also charged are company general manager Jason Perez, 40, of San Mateo, and Hanan Qutami, 56, of South San Francisco.

“Campaign finance and disclosure laws help to ensure fairness and transparency in our elections, and my office takes the violation of these laws very seriously,” Gascon said in a news release. “After a thorough investigation, we have found clear evidence to charge Go Lorrie’s and two of its employees with making illegal campaign contributions.”

The situation was highlighted by Lee’s rivals during last year’s campaign, but it wasn’t enough to derail Lee’s candidacy. His campaign returned the contributions soon after questions were first raised.

Perez allegedly solicited 23 GO Lorrie drivers, dispatchers, administrators and their spouses to each write a $500 personal check to the Ed Lee for Mayor campaign, and later kept his promise that the company would reimburse them.

Each of the defendants is charged with 23 counts of violating state Government Code section 84301 (making a campaign contribution in a name other than the true name of the contributor). Each also is charged with one count of violating San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114(a) (contributing over $500 to a campaign committee in a municipal election) and one count of violating section 1.114(b) (making a campaign contribution by a corporation in a municipal election).

UPDATE @ 5:30 P.M.: “The Mayor appreciates the thorough investigation conducted by the District Attorney, and his campaign assisted and aided this investigation at the time,” says Christine Falvey, Lee’s communications director. “The individuals indicted today were not associated in any way with the campaign and the mayor fully expects anyone who breaks the law to be held fully accountable.”

UPDATE @ 6:43 P.M.: Click here to read the Bay Citizen story that sparked the investigation.