31 results for 'cat:"Government" AND cat:"First Amendment"'.
J. Boasberg grants summary judgment to the clergyman on the one remaining claim in his suit challenging limitations on demonstrations on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. His proposed activities, protests on and around the steps on the eastern side of the Capitol building and the paved areas surrounding them, are protected speech under the First Amendment, and the proposed location and involvement of members of Congress do not render them "government speech." Furthermore, that classification would not exempt restrictions on that speech from First Amendment scrutiny. The steps, or at least the lower portion of those steps, have historically been and remain a public forum. Finally, the ban on speech on the steps is both over-inclusive, in that it includes activities that could not reasonably be considered to interfere with the security of the Capitol, and under-inclusive, in that they allow members of Congress to "invite an untold number of private individuals to join in expressive activities without undergoing any security vetting." They also provide no less-restrictive alternatives. A permanent injunction barring enforcement of these restrictions is entered.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Boasberg, Filed On: May 17, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv2314, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, government, first Amendment
J. Watson dismisses a complaint, filed by the owner of a controversial vanity license plate reading “FCKBLM,” against Honolulu for attempting to revoke the plate. Vanity license plates are a form of government speech that are subject to rules about profanity that are not too vague. Those regulations do not restrict messages based on viewpoint, as the owner suggested, and the letters FCK can be interpreted as an expletive and are not in themselves a protected viewpoint.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Watson, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv407, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, first Amendment
J. Rodriguez denies an organization’s motion for an injunction and temporary restraining order after it sued the city of Kerrville, arguing local ordinances on “peddlers and solicitors” and “electioneering” violate the First Amendment. Despite expressing “generalized” concerns about the ordinances, the suing parties have not shown specific plans to engage in proscribed conduct and therefore lack standing for a restraining order.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 5:24cv403, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, government, first Amendment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Moore finds the lower court erroneously granted the village's motion for summary judgment on constitutional claims filed by the advertising company. The "public-service" exemption included in the village's ordinance on off-site billboards is a content-based restriction that requires the application of strict scrutiny. Therefore, because certain types of signs, including those that do not advertise a service or consumer good, are treated differently than those designed to provide information to the public at large, the regulation is unconstitutional and the case will be reinstated to allow the lower court to determine if that portion of the ordinance can be severed. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 23-3623, Categories: Constitution, government, first Amendment
J. Heytens finds the lower court properly denied the electoral board members' motion to dismiss First Amendment claims. The City of Lynchburg's registrar from 2018 to 2023 claims the board's two Republican members refused to reappoint her to the position, not for the failure of duty but because she was not a loyal Donald Trump supporter. The members are correct in assuming sovereign immunity bars the registrar from recovering monetary damages, but she is entitled to seek injunctive relief. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Heytens, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 23-1902, Categories: government, Immunity, first Amendment
J. McHugh grants the federal government’s motion to dismiss an argument by Safehouse, a proposed nonprofit safe injection center for those struggling with opioid addition, that the federal government would be violating the organization’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion if it criminally prosecuted them for drug crimes after opening the center. While Safehouse argued that it is informed by classic Judeo-Christian beliefs about the need to “preserve life, provide shelter to our neighbors, and do everything possible to care for the sick,” the court found no evidence that the organization is a religious entity in its articles of incorporation.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge: McHugh, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv519, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, government, first Amendment
J. Marbley grants the internet trade association's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling it is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims against the state of Ohio regarding enforcement of its law to prohibit minors under the age of 16 from registering social media accounts without parental consent. It is a content-based restriction of speech that infringes on minors' free speech rights in an extremely broad fashion. Although protecting children from harmful content and reducing the likelihood of mental health issues are compelling interests, the social media ban is "a breathtakingly blunt instrument" to accomplish such goals and is also likely void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv47, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: government, first Amendment, Injunction
J. Pitman grants a preliminary injunction barring Caldwell County and its officials from closing bail hearings to the public and the press after they were sued by Texas Tribune and other news outlets, which said the county had “adopted a policy of categorically closing” all such hearings. The public and press have a “presumptive” right to access such hearings and are being harmed by the lack of access, and Caldwell County has provided “no support” for its arguments that such hearings should remain closed.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv910, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, government, first Amendment
J. Bennett grants summary judgment in favor to Baltimore in this lawsuit brought by a protestor who argues an ordinance prohibiting his use of an A-frame anti-abortion sign on public walkways violates his First Amendment rights. Baltimore permitted him to wear or hold his sign, hand out pamphlets and speak with anyone on the sidewalk. Therefore, the protestor has ample alternative means for communicating his message, and his claims fail.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bennett, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv2587, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, government, first Amendment
J. Calabrese grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the employee's First Amendment retaliation claims fail as a matter of law. Although the gender pay disparity issue involved a matter of public concern, she failed to raise it before the board of commissioners until a hearing when she expressed other frustrations with her supervisor that involved issues related only to their work relationship, a hearing that took place more than five months after the pay gap issue arose.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Calabrese, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv522, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Employment Retaliation, first Amendment
J. Pitman adopts the magistrate’s report and recommendations, granting a motion for attorney fees and costs brought by an advocacy group dedicated to the separation of church and state after it sued Texas for removing the group’s display from the state capitol building. That display — installed under the “Capitol Exhibit Rule,” which allows anyone to “submit an exhibit for display at the Capitol” so long as it meets certain “undemanding requirements” — depicted “Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Statue of Liberty gathered around a manger containing the Bill of Rights,” and was taken down after Texas Governor Greg Abbott asked another official to “remove the display from the Capitol immediately.”
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 1:16cv233, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Constitution, government, first Amendment
J. Osteen denies North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls’ motion for preliminary injunction following a proposed investigation by the state’s judicial standards commission of some of Earls’ public comments. Earls, the sole Black woman on the state supreme court, has publicly claimed that the court lacks racial diversity and harbors implicit bias, and that she has the First Amendment right to make such statements. She argues that an investigation would infringe upon this right. However, according to the commission, Earls’ comments potentially violate a code of judicial conduct wherein judges should not make such public comments about each other because this can undermine public confidence in the court. The state court acted first, which could mean abstention doctrine would at least temporarily stop an injunction from proceeding. But, in this case, Earls has failed to establish a probability of success on the merits based on her potential violation of the code of conduct, so her motion must be denied.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Osteen, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv734, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, first Amendment, Injunction
J. Morrison grants, in part, the news outlet's motion for attorney fees following its successful preliminary injunction motion in its case regarding a county clerk's restriction of public access to newly-filed civil actions, awarding approximately $135,000 in fees. While it is entitled to fees after the success of its preliminary injunction motion, several of the attorneys' rates will be limited to $500 per hour to better reflect reasonable rates in the Columbus, Ohio area, and prefiling fees must also be reduced.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Morrison, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2471, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Attorney Fees, first Amendment
J. Ballou denies the Republican electoral board members' motion for judgment on First Amendment violation claims. The members allegedly voted not to reappoint the general registrar because of her political views. The members claimed the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit because the state is the real party of interest. Still, they can be held liable because it is a personal-capacity claim, not an official-capacity claim.
Court: USDC Western District of Virginia, Judge: Ballou, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 6:23cv35, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, government, first Amendment
J. Casper denies protesters’ motion for injunctive relief after they believed their First Amendment rights were violated when they were told they were not allowed to protest the innocence of a woman accused of murder directly outside the property of a potential witness. The government has a right to interfere with the protesters’ protests to protect the potential witness from being too intimidated to give truthful testimony, which would then impede the administration of justice in the murder trial.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Casper, Filed On: November 10, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv12685, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Evidence, government, first Amendment
J. Watson denies both parties' motions for summary judgment, ruling that while the tax-exempt organization has standing to pursue First Amendment claims against the IRS for disclosure requirements related to personal information of donors, issues of fact remain as to whether the disclosure requirements are part of the federal government's legitimate need to enforce tax compliance regulations.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Watson, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv4297, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: government, Tax, first Amendment
J. O'Connor finds for a city on a mayor's claims arising, in part, from the city's refusal to investigate a foundation he believed to be engaging in unlawful actions and the city's alleged silencing of his public criticism of the foundation. The mayor lacks standing to pursue disputed terms within the city's charter, fails to show municipal liability for his free speech claim and fails to adequately plead his due process claim.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: O'Connor, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv992, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Due Process, first Amendment
J. Torresen denies in part a town’s motion to dismiss a town resident's lawsuit against it for allegedly violating his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The town claims that the lawsuit violates their Eleventh Amendment protections as state officials but its unclear if the town’s State Trooper is being sued just in his official capacity or in his individual capacity, and if its the latter, then the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t apply.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Torresen, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv50, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Constitution, government, first Amendment
J. Bush finds the lower court properly dismissed First Amendment claims made by suspended Twitter users, as they failed to establish traceability between several statements by the federal government and the social media platform's decision to suspended their accounts for spreading Covid-19 misinformation. Twitter established its Covid-19 policy well before any statements by the press secretary or surgeon general, and because any claims of "behind-the-scenes" coercion by the federal government are conclusory at best, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Bush, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 22-3573, Categories: government, Covid-19, first Amendment
J. Underhill denies, in part, the revenue department employees' motion to dismiss, ruling proof of an injury to one's marital relationship is not required to bring a plausible claim for infringement of the right to familial association, and so the husband's claim of retaliation stemming from the termination of his wife after he provided legislative testimony critical of the department may proceed.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Underhill, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1372, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Employment Retaliation, first Amendment
J. O'Connor denies an atheist group's motion for a preliminary injunction that would require the city of Fort Worth to hang its banners in connection with an event called, "The Dangers of Christian Nationalism." The banners are government speech, as the city controls the banner policy and the public is likely to perceive that the city is communicating through the banners; therefore, the First Amendment protections afforded to a limited public forum do not apply.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: O'Connor, Filed On: August 6, 2023, Case #: 4:23cv736, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, first Amendment
J. Walker finds that the district court properly dismissed first amendment claims challenging the prohibition against signs at public meetings held by the governing common council because governmental entities are permitted to regulate participation in limited public forums, and the viewpoint neutral ban was reasonable in light of potential disruption or distraction. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Walker, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 22-664-cv, Categories: government, first Amendment
J. McShane finds in favor of Oregon State Senator Brian Boquist for his complaint alleging that the Senate leadership retaliated against his exercise of free speech rights. After stating during a June 2019 speech on the Senate floor that, if the Senate leader is going to send the police for him, “Hell’s coming to visit you personally,” Boquist was told he would have to provide 12-hour advance notice in writing when he planned to go to the capitol building. Boquist’s comments were hyperbolic and said in “a highly charged political environment.” The statements did not constitute a true threat and the imposition of the 12-hour rule infringed on his rights.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: McShane, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 6:19cv1163, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, government, first Amendment