SAN FRANCISCO – An order barring all protests in most of Seattle’s downtown during the tumultuous World Trade Organization meeting there in 1999 did not violate the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

By a margin of 2-to-1, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the chaotic and violent demonstrations that raged in the streets surrounding the meeting venue justified the creation of the so-called no-protest zone.

“When a city is charged with the critically important responsibility of hosting a convention of world leaders, a setting in which the eyes of the world are on the city and our country, and our nation’s reputation is at stake as well, the city must have the power to maintain civic order in a responsible way that does not unduly interfere with the gathered convention or with civil liberties,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority. “A measure of discretion necessarily must be permitted to a city, on the scene with direct knowledge, to fashion remedies to restore order once lost.”

In dissent, Judge Richard Paez wrote, “Even in light of the serious violence, however, the city’s response – cordoning off a 25-square-block area of downtown Seattle to restrict all forms of protest – was not constitutionally justified.”

Judge Paez said the majority’s conclusion was “inconsistent with our long tradition of protecting free speech even when that protection may seem inconvenient.”

While the appeals court upheld the “no protest” order, the ruling was far from a total victory for the city. The court unanimously reinstated a class action lawsuit and other claims alleging that anti-WTO protesters were targeted for arrest based on their views. The court also suggested that confiscation of a protest sign from a demonstrator who was not arrested violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

During several days of demonstrations in late November and early December 1999, protesters smashed storefront windows and set fires in the streets. Police used tear gas and arrested more than 600 people. An estimated 40,000 people took part in largely peaceful marches against globalization.

In later lawsuits, demonstrators asserted that the order establishing the no-protest zone was illegal, in part because it included a vague exemption for shoppers and accorded too much authority to individual police officers to determine who had legitimate business downtown and who did not.

Judge Paez faulted the city for poor planning and for ignoring security threats that had nothing to do with the protesters. “While the police scoured for ‘No WTO’ signs and buttons, there was no evidence that officers checked bags for crowbars, weapons, or bombs,” he wrote.

An attorney for the demonstrators, Arthur Bryant, offered a mixed reaction to the decision. “It is both a great victory and a great loss,” he said. “It creates the possibility of an anarchist’s veto of the public’s rights. … If the First Amendment stands for anything, it’s that people can’t be deprived of free speech because other people are violating the law.”

Mr. Bryant hailed the court’s ruling allowing some claims to go forward.

Another attorney for the protesters, James Lobsenz, said he will seek a rehearing by a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court.

An attorney for the city, Ted Beck, said he was pleased that the court found that, in general terms, Seattle officials acted within their authority.

A district court judge who was specially assigned to the appeal, Roslyn Silver of Arizona, joined in the majority opinion written by Judge Gould, who is based in Seattle.

All three judges who ruled yesterday were appointed by President Clinton. Judge Paez’s appeals-court nomination was blocked for more than four years by conservative senators who said they viewed him as too liberal.