Springfield has an ordinance that prohibits panhandling in its “downtown historic district”—less than 2% of the city’s area, containing its principal shopping, entertainment, and governmental areas. The ordinance defines panhandling as an oral request for an immediate donation of money. Signs requesting money are allowed, as are oral pleas to send money later. Plaintiffs received citations for violating this ordinance and alleged that they will continue panhandling but fear liability. They unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit upheld the ordinance in 2014, but granted rehearing in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Reed v. Gilbert, and reversed. The majority in Reed stated: “A law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government’s benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of ‘animus toward the ideas contained’ in the regulated speech” and “a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.” The Seventh Circuit opined that the majority opinion in Reed effectively abolishes any distinction between content regulation and subject-matter regulation. View "Norton v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Springfield has an ordinance that prohibits panhandling in its “downtown historic district”—less than 2% of the city’s area, containing its principal shopping, entertainment, and governmental areas. The ordinance defines panhandling as an oral request for an immediate donation of money. Signs requesting money are allowed, as are oral pleas to send money later. Plaintiffs received citations for violating this ordinance and alleged that they will continue panhandling but fear liability. They unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit upheld the ordinance in 2014, but granted rehearing in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Reed v. Gilbert, and reversed. The majority in Reed stated: “A law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government’s benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of ‘animus toward the ideas contained’ in the regulated speech” and “a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.” The Seventh Circuit opined that the majority opinion in Reed effectively abolishes any distinction between content regulation and subject-matter regulation. View "Norton v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

Chapman, proposed to represent a class, under 47 U.S.C. 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, who received faxes from First Index despite not having given consent. First Index responded that it always had consent, though it may have been verbal (during trade shows or phone conversations). Discovery was conducted and experts’ reports submitted. Chapman asked the judge to certify a class of all persons who had received faxes from First Index since August 2005 (four years before the complaint was filed) without their consent. The court declined, ruling that the difficulty of deciding who had provided oral consent made it infeasible to determine the class. Chapman proposed a different class: All persons whose faxes from First Index either lacked an opt-out notice or contained one of three specific notices that Chapman believes violated FCC regulations. The court declined to certify that class, finding that Chapman had known about the potential notice issue from the outset of the litigation but had made a strategic decision not to pursue it earlier. Changing the focus of the litigation almost five years into the case was impermissible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision not to certify a class, but vacated with respect to Chapman’s personal claim. View "Chapman v. First Index, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, and the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., alleging that defendant, her former boyfriend, had gained access to her e-mail and Facebook accounts without her permission and therefore in violation of the CFAA and the SCA. Plaintiff discovered that she could not log on to her AOL e-mail account on or about August 1, 2011 and plaintiff discovered that she could not log into her Facebook account on February 24, 2012. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely. While the CFAA and the SCA provided a civil cause of action, the statute of limitations to file under each statute is two years. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims relating to defendant's alleged unlawful access to her e-mail account are time-barred because she filed suit on January 2, 2014, after the two year statute of limitations had expired. However, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims relating to the alleged unlawful access of her Facebook account were timely filed, less than two years from the date they accrued. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sewell v. Bernardin" on Justia Law

After obtaining terrorism convictions, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Convertino came under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). An unidentified DOJ source leaked information about that investigation to Ashenfelter, a reporter. The Detroit Free Press published details, including allegations that Convertino withheld Brady materials and threatened a defense lawyer with a baseless criminal investigation. DOJ’s attempts to find the source were unsuccessful. The terrorism convictions were vacated. The defendants’ claims against Convertino under 42 U.S.C. 1983 were dismissed based on prosecutorial and qualified immunity. Convertino was found not guilty of obstruction of justice. Convertino sued DOJ, alleging that the investigation, leak, and disciplinary measures were in retaliation for his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Ultimately, a single claim remained--that DOJ violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, when its unidentified official leaked confidential information to Ashenfelter. The district court granted the motion to compel production from Ashenfelter. Ashenfelter asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at two depositions. The district court found that Ashenfelter had a reasonable basis for fearing that answering the questions would entail self-incrimination, sustained the assertion of privilege, and reduced its ruling to two written opinions—one public, and one sealed. Convertino unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, citing a statement by then-Attorney General Holder that the DOJ “will not prosecute any reporter.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the claims of privilege. View "Convertino v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Asphalt hired a company that, from 2005-2008, sent about 44,000 fax advertisements to potential customers. FS, which received some of the faxes, filed a class-action, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, seeking statutory damages of $500 for each fax. Asphalt notified Western, its insurer during the time when roughly 33,000 faxes were sent. The policies contained a deductible of $1,000 “per claim” for property damage, personal, and advertising injury, applicable to “all damages sustained by one person or organization as the result of any one claim” and to “legal expenses incurred in the handling and investigation of each claim.” Western hired a law firm to represent Asphalt, but did not refer to a reservation of rights. The firm handled the defense for four years. Western sent another letter, stating that Western intended to defend subject to a reservation of rights. Western sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or to indemnify. The district court determined that FS lacked standing to bring counterclaims and that Western had a duty to defend, having waived its defenses by waiting four years to issue a reservation-of-rights letter. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Western did not waive the $1,000 deductible, which applies separately to each fax, so that there is also no duty to indemnify. View "W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Fun Servs. of Kan. City" on Justia Law

Asphalt hired a company that, from 2005-2008, sent about 44,000 fax advertisements to potential customers. FS, which received some of the faxes, filed a class-action, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, seeking statutory damages of $500 for each fax. Asphalt notified Western, its insurer during the time when roughly 33,000 faxes were sent. The policies contained a deductible of $1,000 “per claim” for property damage, personal, and advertising injury, applicable to “all damages sustained by one person or organization as the result of any one claim” and to “legal expenses incurred in the handling and investigation of each claim.” Western hired a law firm to represent Asphalt, but did not refer to a reservation of rights. The firm handled the defense for four years. Western sent another letter, stating that Western intended to defend subject to a reservation of rights. Western sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or to indemnify. The district court determined that FS lacked standing to bring counterclaims and that Western had a duty to defend, having waived its defenses by waiting four years to issue a reservation-of-rights letter. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Western did not waive the $1,000 deductible, which applies separately to each fax, so that there is also no duty to indemnify. View "W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Fun Servs. of Kan. City" on Justia Law

ADX petitioned the FCC to deny the assignment to a competitor of several radio licenses in the Pensacola, Florida, and Mobile, Alabama, markets. The FCC denied the petition and ADX appealed, contending that, in applying the statutory caps on ownership of radio stations, the Commission should not have used its normal market definition methodology because of unique aspects of the Pensacola and Mobile markets. Alternatively, ADX contends that the Commission should have applied the two-year waiting period applicable to changes in market definition. Determining that ADX has Article III standing, the court affirmed the judgment because the Commission reasonably exercised its judgment in deciding not to deviate from the market definition methodology it adopted in 2003, and because its interpretation of the waiting period was consistent with the policy established in its prior order and not otherwise suspect. View "ADX Communications v. FCC" on Justia Law

DSF challenged the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act as facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as-applied to its 2014 Voter Guide, planned for distribution over the internet within 60 days of Delaware’s general election and planned to cost more than $500. The 2013 Act requires “[a]ny person . . . who makes an expenditure for any third-party advertisement that causes the aggregate amount of expenditures for third-party advertisements made by such person to exceed $500 during an election period [to] file a third-party advertisement report with the Commissioner.,” 15 Del. C. 8031(a). A “third-party advertisement” is a communication by any person (other than a candidate committee or a political party) that: Refers to a clearly identified candidate, is publicly distributed within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election to an audience that includes members of the electorate for the office sought by such candidate. The court granted a preliminary injunction, declaring the disclosure requirements unconstitutional. The Third Circuit reversed, finding the Act narrowly tailored and not impermissibly broad. A disclosure requirement is subject to “exacting scrutiny,” necessitating a “substantial relationship” between the state’s interest and the requirement. The Act marries one-time, event-driven disclosures to the “election period,” which is controlled by the relevant candidate’s term, providing the necessary “substantial relationship” between the requirement and Delaware’s informational interest View "Del. Strong Families v. Attorney Gen. Del." on Justia Law

After the Fire District suspended Anzaldua, a paramedic and firefighter, for failing to respond to a directive issued by Chief Farwell, Anzaldua emailed a newspaper reporter expressing concerns about the District and about Farwell. The email “shocked” and “angered” his co-workers. Battalion chiefs noted it “fostered division between Anzaldua and his co-workers," and between firefighters and Farwell. The District terminated Anzaldua, who sued, alleging that the District and the individuals involved in his termination violated his First Amendment rights by retaliation and that Farwell and Anzaldua’s ex-girlfriend violated federal and state computer privacy laws by accessing his email account and obtaining his emails. The district court allowed some First Amendment claims to proceed but dismissed all other claims and denied leave to amend the computer privacy law claims. The court granted defendants summary judgment on Anzaldua’s First Amendment claims, citing qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Anzaldua’s First Amendment claims and denial of leave to amend federal computer privacy law claims, but reversed denial of leave to amend state computer privacy law claims. View "Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire" on Justia Law