Citilink, a municipal corporation that provides bus service in Fort Wayne, Indiana, has regulatory authority over advertisements inside the buses and on the buses’ exterior. Health Link, a nonprofit corporation, provides women’s healthcare and wanted to post an advertisement. Citilink refused because it forbids public service ads that “express or advocate opinions or positions upon political, religious, or moral issues.” Although the proposed ad did not express or advocate any such opinion or position, Citilink discovered that Health Link is pro‐life and suggests (not in the ad) that women with unplanned or crisis pregnancies consider health care and related services that provide alternatives to abortion. Even Health Link’s home page does not indicate its position. The ad referred to “life affirming healthcare.” Health Link and Allen County Right to Life share a street address. The Seventh Circuit reversed judgment in favor of Citilink. Once a government entity has created a facility (the ad spaces in and on the buses) for communicative activity, it “must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Citilink’s refusal to post the ad was groundless discrimination against constitutionally protected speech. View "Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Pub. Transp. Corp." on Justia Law

A 2012 event at Allegan High School was intended to educate the public about House Bill 4769, which aimed to limit foreign law’s influence in Michigan. The organizers wanted to warn citizens about the “internal threat to America posed by radical Muslims” and “the dangers ... of Sharia law.” The District agreed to rent the organizers a room. They paid the customary $90 fee. Objectors wrote a letter arguing that the speaker, Saleem, was a purveyor of hatred and asked the district to rescind its permission. The School received calls expressing the same view; the event received local press coverage. Shortly before the event began, an unidentified woman approached the police, claiming that Saleem had a $25 million bounty on his head. Saleem’s body guard discounted the threat. The event began. When it was underway, authorities shut it down. The organizers allege that people were allowed to stay in the building for 30-45 minutes and that Saleem remained inside without law enforcement surveillance. The organizers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against the city, for lack of evidence of an applicable municipal policy or custom, and reversed and remanded an order allowing the school district to withdraw its Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 offer to stipulate to judgment of $500. View "Agema v. City of Allegan" on Justia Law

Wagener agreed to review proposed ads from MR, then received a fax from MR, including pricing and sample fax advertisements, and stating that MR would not send out ads unless Wagener returned an approved copy. During a follow-up call, Wagener stated that he did not like the samples. The caller agreed to provide a new sample and a list of potential recipients. Wagener wanted to verify that potential recipients were businesses that would be interested in his services and were located in the relevant geographical region. Wagener did not receive that list or a final ad and was surprised to find that a fax advertisement had been transmitted to thousands of recipients without his approval. Wagener immediately tried to contact MR but received no response. Wagener then learned that his employee had mistakenly mailed a check to MR. Wagener’s bank implemented a stop order. Wagener never heard from MR again. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), subjects the sender of unauthorized faxes to a statutory penalty of $500 per violation. The ads at issue violated the Act. The district court certified a class of more than 10,000 plaintiffs. A jury found that Wagener had not “authorize[d] the fax broadcast transmission,” and did not “have direct, personal participation in the authorization of the fax broadcast transmission.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. View "Paldo Sign & Display Co. v. Wagener Equities, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenge the Commission's 2015 Open Internet Order, which reclassified broadband service as a telecommunications service, subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 201. The Commission determined that broadband service satisfies the statutory definition of a telecommunications service: “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public.” In accordance with Brand X, the Commission's conclusions about consumer perception find extensive support in the record and together justify the Commission’s decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. See National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services. The court rejected petitioners' numerous challenges to the Commission's decision to reclassify broadband, finding that none have merit. The court concluded that the Commission adequately explained why it reclassified broadband from an information service to a telecommunications service and its decision was not arbitrary and capricious. US Telecom never questions the Commission’s application of the statute’s test for common carriage, and US Telecom cites no case, nor is the court aware of one, holding that when the Commission invokes the statutory test for common carriage, it must also apply the NARUC test. See National Ass’n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC. Where the Commission concluded that it could regulate interconnection arrangements under Title II as a component of broadband service, the court rejected US Telecom's two challenges to the Commission's decision. The court rejected mobile petitioners’ arguments and find that the Commission’s reclassification of mobile broadband as a commercial mobile service is reasonable and supported by the record. In the Order, the Commission decided to forbear from numerous provisions of the Communications Act. The court rejected Full Service Network's procedural and substantive challenges to the Commission’s forbearance decision. The Commission promulgated five rules in the Order: rules banning (i) blocking, (ii) throttling, and (iii) paid prioritization; (iv) a General Conduct Rule; and (v) an enhanced transparency rule. The court rejected Alamo's challenge to the anti-paid-prioritization rule as beyond the Commission’s authority and rejected US Telecom's challenge to the General Conduct Rule as unconstitutionally vague. Having upheld the FCC’s reclassification of broadband service as common carriage, the court concluded that the First Amendment poses no bar to the rules and the court rejected Alamo and Berninger's challenges. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "United States Telecom Assoc. v. FCC" on Justia Law

Tri-Corp, a nonprofit corporation, offered low-income housing to mentally disabled persons in Milwaukee. Its lender, the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, filed a foreclosure action. Tri-Corp blamed others for its financial problems and named several third-party defendants. The state court allowed the foreclosure and rejected the third-party claims except those against Milwaukee Alderman Bauman, who removed the claims to federal court. Tri-Corp contends that Bauman is liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for issuing statements critical of its operations and for lobbying other officials to rule against it in administrative proceedings, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Seventh Circuit joined six circuit courts in holding that section 1983 cannot be used to alter the categories of persons potentially liable in private actions under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tri-Corp did not allege that Bauman himself denied it any right under the Fair Housing Act, or even was a member of a public body that did so. Tri-Corp accuses Bauman of speech, not action. Public officials enjoy the right of free speech and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applies to claims under the Act, allowing governmental officials to try to persuade other officials to take particular actions. View "Tri-Corp Hous. Inc. v. Bauman" on Justia Law

The 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act requires producers of visual depictions of “actual sexually explicit conduct” to keep records documenting the identity and age of every performer in those depictions, 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. 2257A, extended similar requirements to producers of depictions of “simulated sexually explicit conduct.” Producers are required to examine “an identification document” for each performer and maintain records listing each performer’s name and birthdate, available for inspection “at all reasonable times.” Producers must “affix[] to every copy” of covered depictions “a statement describing where the records . . . may be located.” After the district court dismissed a challenge, the Third Circuit identified viable as-applied and facial claims under the First and Fourth Amendments. Following remand, the Third Circuit held that the administrative search regime violates the Fourth Amendment, but that the laws did not violate the First Amendment. Reviewing the case for a third time, in light of 2015 Supreme Court holdings (Reed v. Town of Gilbert and City of Los Angeles v. Patel), the Third Circuit determined that the statutes are content-based, and require strict scrutiny review under the First Amendment and remanded. View "Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Attorney Hassell obtained a judgment holding Bird liable for defamation and requiring her to remove defamatory reviews she posted about Hassell on Yelp.com. The judgment contained an order requiring Yelp to remove Bird’s defamatory reviews from its site. Yelp, who was not a party in the defamation action, moved to vacate the judgment. The court of appeal affirmed denial of that motion, but remanded. The court concluded that Yelp is not “aggrieved” by the defamation judgment against Bird, but is “aggrieved” by the removal order; Yelp’s motion to vacate was not cognizable under Code of Civil Procedure section 6632; Yelp has standing to challenge the validity of the removal order as an “aggrieved party,” having brought a nonstatutory motion to vacate; Yelp’s due process rights were not violated by its lack of prior notice and a hearing on the removal order request; the removal order does not violate Yelp’s First Amendment rights to the extent that it requires Yelp to remove Bird’s defamatory reviews; to the extent it purports to cover statements other than Bird’s defamatory reviews, the removal order is an overbroad unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; and Yelp’s immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230, does not extend to the removal order. View "Hassell v. Bird" on Justia Law

After defendant bought the commercial building housing plaintiffs‘ rug cleaning business, disputes developed. The tenants complained that landlords behavior interfered with their business operations and amounted to a campaign of harassment and retaliation. The tenant obtained a preliminary injunction, enjoining landlord‘s construction activities exceeding a stated decibel level during business hours. Three consumer reviews criticizing tenant’s business subsequently appeared on the Internet site Yelp.com posted from different online aliases. Tenant suspected landlord was responsible and amended the complaint to allege defamation. Landlord successfully moved in limine to exclude the evidence related to the Yelp reviews on hearsay and authenticity grounds. The trial court later granted landlord a directed verdict on the defamation cause of action. A jury found that, although landlord had breached the lease agreement, no damages resulted. The trial court deemed landlord the prevailing party and granted his request for attorney‘s fees. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the exclusion of the Yelp evidence and the resulting disposition of the defamation cause of action was error and it is not clear that the outcome on the contract-based causes of action would have remained unaffected by the presentation of evidence on the alleged defamation. View "Kinda v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

A 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance states that: [n]o person or persons shall knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending fifteen (15) feet from any entrance to the hospital and or health care facility," with exceptions for safety personnel and those assisting patients and others. A preamble states: “The exercise of a person’s right to protest or counsel against certain medical procedures is a First Amendment activity that must be balanced against another person’s right to obtain medical counseling and treatment in an unobstructed manner.” Plaintiffs, who engaged in “sidewalk counseling” outside of a Planned Parenthood facility to persuade women to forego abortion services, challenged the ordinance, citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in McCullen v. Coakley, which struck down a similar Massachusetts law. The Third Circuit vacated dismissal of the First Amendment claims. Considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, those claims are sufficient to go forward. The speech at issue is core political speech entitled to maximum First Amendment protection; the city cannot burden it without first trying, or at least demonstrating that it has seriously considered, substantially less restrictive alternatives that would achieve its legitimate, substantial, and content-neutral interests. McCullen indicates that the constitutionality of buffer zone laws turns on the factual circumstances giving rise to the law in each case, so dismissal of such challenges is rarely appropriate at the pleading stage. View "Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

North County filed suit against Qwest, a rival local exchange carrier, and, in their official capacities, the Arizona Commission and the Oregon Commission. The commissions are state agencies whose responsibilities include regulating contracts between such carriers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, classifies local exchange carriers into two categories: incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Qwest is an ILEC, and North County is a CLEC. The parties entered into interconnection agreements (ICAs) in 1997. When subsequent negotiations for extension agreements were not successful, Qwest filed suit to compel arbitration. The district court granted summary judgment to Qwest. Given (1) the language of the 1997 ICAs’ negotiation clause and the way it was interpreted by both state Commissions below; (2) North County’s conduct in the time leading up to the arbitration proceedings; and (3) North County’s lack of any rebuttal argument before this court; the court is satisfied that the state Commissions had authority to arbitrate the 2011 ICAs because the 1997 ICAs themselves gave Qwest the power to invoke the negotiation-and-arbitration mechanism set forth in 47 U.S.C. 252. The court examined six specific provisions of the 2011 ICAs and rejected North County's challenges. View "NCCC v. Qwest" on Justia Law