Use When
When central authorities impose protest‑suppressing curfews or order network shutdowns, subnational governments can decline enforcement, keep services open, and force judicial review.
When ministries demand bulk resident data or use administrative subpoenas to bypass warrants, municipalities can adopt “lawful process only” policies and refuse disclosures.
When censors target curricula or public libraries, school boards and councils can reject bans, maintain access, and document improper directives to build legal challenges.
Instructions
- 1
Identify the specific central directive you are refusing, define your legal basis for refusal, and clarify which right or public service you are protecting.
- 2
Develop a concise public statement grounded in constitutional or statutory authority that any resident can understand and repeat.
- 3
Assemble a core team with distinct roles: legal counsel, communications lead, records officer, council liaisons, and community engagement staff.
- 4
Before going public, secure commitments from civil liberties attorneys, municipal law associations, unions, and human rights monitors; obtain indemnification for participating officials.
- 5
Pass a formal "lawful process only" resolution with model ordinances that distinguish mandatory from discretionary duties and establish a clear, written refusal protocol.
- 6
Launch a public transparency portal publishing dockets, contested directives, and response timelines so residents can verify your actions in real time.
- 7
Brief journalists and civil society observers in advance, providing press kits with the legal rationale, affected services, and a single designated spokesperson.
- 8
Train all front-line staff on de-escalation, records handling, and media discipline; log every directive and response with timestamped, tamper-proof documentation.
- 9
After the action, publish all records, gather resident testimony, and coordinate messaging with allied jurisdictions to anchor the public narrative before opponents define it.
Historic Parallels
- Germany, 1920: State and municipal civil servants refused to recognize the Kapp Putsch and upheld the Weimar constitution; the coup collapsed within four days
- United States, 1850s: Northern states enacted personal liberty laws that blocked Fugitive Slave Act enforcement, denied federal agents access to state resources, and made the law effectively unenforceable where applied.
- Leipzig, East Germany, 1989: Local officials declined the central order to violently suppress 70,000 Monday demonstrators; the crackdown never came, the movement grew
Modern Examples
- A city council passes a resolution barring local police from enforcing central protest curfews, keeps parks open, and livestreams legal briefings.
- A provincial data‑protection office blocks a blanket request for resident records, publishing a transparency log of all correspondence.
- A school district maintains challenged books under a “rights‑respecting collection” policy, convenes public reviews, and files an administrative appeal against central censorship.
Participants
Individual
No
12–30+ per jurisdiction—mayor or executive, city or regional attorney, council leads, clerk and records officer, procurement and finance, police and school liaisons, information technology, communications, ombuds or inspector liaison, and community engagement lead.
Helpful Materials
- Model resolutions and ordinance templates
- Refusal scripts and legal memo shells
- Timestamped directive and request logs
- Secure file-drop with chain-of-custody seals
- Public notice boards and neutral signage
- Legal aid and ombuds hotline cards
References
- Council of Europe, European Charter of Local Self‑Government
- Open Government Partnership, OGP Local Handbook
- OpinioJuris, Justified Disobedience?
- Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy
Use of Action Playbook educational materials must adhere with Unruled Masses’ Terms of Service.
Stay Nonviolent. Coordinate Strategically. Take Back Your Power.
