thayer v. worcester, ma, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Thayer v. Worcester, MA, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thayer-v-worcester-ma-1st-cir-2014 1/36

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2355

ROBERT THAYER, SHARON BROWNSON AND TRACY NOVI CK,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

CI TY OF WORCESTER,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ti mot hy S. Hi l l man, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e Tor r uel l a, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,

Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udge.

Kevi n P. Mart i n, wi t h whomYvonne W. Chan, Todd J . Marabel l a,Goodwi n Proct er LLP, Mat t hew R. Segal , Sarah R. Wunsch, andAmer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on Foundat i on of Massachuset t s wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Davi d M. Moor e, Ci t y Sol i ci t or , wi t h whom Wendy L. Qui nn,Assi st ant Ci t y Sol i ci t or , and Ci t y of Wor cest er Law Depar t ment ,wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J une 19, 2014

*Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t he Supr emeCour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.



SOUTER, Associate Justice. Thi s appeal i s f r om t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on agai nst

enf or ci ng t wo ci t y or di nances pr ohi bi t i ng coer ci ve or r i sky

behavi or by panhandl er s, ot her sol i ci t or s, and demonst r at or s

seeki ng t he at t ent i on of mot or vehi cl e dr i ver s. We af f i r m.

I.

A.

For a decade, t he publ i c pol i cy of t he Ci t y of Wor cest er

has been pushed and pul l ed by concer ns about panhandl i ng on i t s

st r eet s. I n 2005, t he Ci t y adopt ed a pl an t o r educe i t s pr eval ence

t hat i ncl uded publ i c educat i on about char i t abl e or gani zat i ons and

i ncr eased ef f or t s by soci al ser vi ce agenci es. The Ci t y post ed

si gns r eadi ng "Panhandl i ng i s not t he Sol ut i on! " and encour aged

r esi dent s t o r edi r ect t hei r cont r i but i ons t o char i t i es ser vi ng t he

poor . Cr i t i ci sm of t he si gns l ed t he Ci t y t o t ake t hem down by

August of 2006.

The i ssue became promi nent agai n i n t he summer of 2012,

when t he Ci t y Manager sent a memorandum t o t he Ci t y Counci l

descr i bi ng a number of " [ c] ommon concer ns" about panhandl i ng,

i ncl udi ng t he per cept i on t hat t he Ci t y gave t oo l i t t l e hel p t o t he

needy, as wel l as t he "f ear / i nt i mi dat i on" of r esi dent s and "publ i c

saf et y" hazar ds ar i si ng f r om r oadsi de sol i ci t at i on. The memo

r epor t ed t hat i n t he cour se of one year , Wor cest er pol i ce had been

di spat ched t o 181 i nci dent s of aggr essi ve behavi or by i ndi vi dual s

- 2-



suspect ed of panhandl i ng, r esul t i ng i n f i ve ar r est s. The Manager

observed t hat t her e was no "cur r ent mechani sm f or t r acki ng or

compi l i ng st at i st i cs on panhandl i ng or i t s i mpact on t he

communi t y, " and pr oposed a "mul t i - f aceted, communi t y- wi de r esponse

t hat i ncor por at es di r ect ser vi ce pr ovi der s, non- pr of i t agenci es,

ar ea busi nesses, pol i cymaker s, and publ i c ser vi ces. "

The f ol l owi ng Oct ober , t he Ci t y Manager r epor t ed agai n,

t hi s t i me wi t h dat a col l ect ed by a t eam of case wor ker s and an

out r each worker who had spent mont hs educat i ng 38 panhandl er s about

t he r esour ces and ser vi ces avai l abl e t o t hem f r om t he Ci t y. The

r epor t concl uded t hat t he "out comes of t he out r each wor ker ' s

engagement ef f or t s [ wer e] encour agi ng, " wi t h a maj or i t y of t he

consul t ed panhandl er s af f i r mi ng "a desi r e to wor k wi t h t he out r each

worker t o obt ai n assi st ance. " At t he same t i me, t he Manager noted

t hat out r each ef f or t s f ai l ed t o addr ess "anot her si de of t he

i ssue": t he "i ssue of publ i c saf et y- - when i ndi vi dual s ar e wal ki ng

i n and out of t r af f i c to col l ect money i n i nt er secti ons, t r af f i c

i sl ands, and r oadways. "

I n l i ght of t hat pr obl emand t he ear l i er pol i ce r epor t s,

t he Manager advi sed t he Ci t y Counci l t o adopt t wo or di nances

addr essi ng t he saf et y r i sks. The f i r st was "An Or di nance

Pr ohi bi t i ng Aggr essi ve Beggi ng, Sol i ci t i ng and Panhandl i ng i n

Publ i c Pl aces" ( Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance) , whi ch woul d make

i t "unl awf ul f or any per son t o beg, panhandl e or sol i ci t any ot her

- 3-



per son i n an aggr essi ve manner . " I t woul d appl y t o "sol i ci t i ng"

i n t he f or mof "usi ng t he spoken, wr i t t en, or pr i nt ed wor d, bodi l y

gest ur es, si gns, or other means of communi cat i on wi t h t he pur pose

of obt ai ni ng an i mmedi ate donat i on of money or other t hi ng of

val ue, " and i t def i ned "aggr essi ve" conduct at t wo l evel s. The

def i ni t i on i ncl uded obvi ousl y t hr eat eni ng behavi or , as by

sol i ci t i ng someone " i n a manner . . . l i kel y t o cause a r easonabl e

per son t o f ear i mmedi at e bodi l y har m, " usi ng "vi ol ent or

t hr eat eni ng l anguage, " or bl ocki ng a per son' s ri ght of way. I t

f ur t her cover ed a r ange of pot ent i al l y coer ci ve t hough not

convent i onal l y aggr essi ve behavi or s, i ncl udi ng sol i ci t i ng f r om

someone wai t i ng i n l i ne to buy t i cket s or ent er a bui l di ng;

sol i ci t i ng af t er dar k, cal cul at ed as "t he t i me f r om one- hal f hour

bef or e sunset t o one- hal f hour af t er sunr i se"; cont i nui ng t o

sol i ci t f r oma per son af t er t he r ecei pt of a negat i ve r esponse; and

sol i ci t i ng anyone wi t hi n 20 f eet of an ent r ance or par ki ng ar ea of

a bank, aut omat ed t el l er machi ne, publ i c t r anspor t at i on st op, pay

phone, t heat er , or any out door commer ci al seat i ng ar ea l i ke a

si dewal k caf é. The t ext of t he ordi nance was pr eceded by a

pr oposed "Decl ar at i on of Fi ndi ngs and Pol i cy, " whi ch det ai l ed t he

Ci t y' s concerns about how t he behavi ors t o be banned t hr eat ened t he

saf et y of Wor cest er r esi dent s. I n par t i cul ar , t he decl ar at i on

st at ed t hat " [ p] er sons appr oached by i ndi vi dual s aski ng f or money,

obj ect s or ot her t hi ngs of any val ue ar e par t i cul ar l y vul ner abl e t o

- 4-



r eal , appar ent or per cei ved coer ci on when such r equest i s

accompani ed by . . . [ cer t ai n f or ms of ] aggr essi ve behavi or . "

The second pr oposal , "An Or di nance Rel at i ve t o Pedest r i an

Saf et y" ( Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance) , t ar get ed di st r act i ons on

publ i c r oads:

No person shal l , af t er havi ng been gi ven duenot i ce war ni ng by a pol i ce of f i cer , per si st i nwal ki ng or st andi ng on any t r af f i c i sl and orupon t he roadway of any st r eet or hi ghway,except f or t he pur pose of cr ossi ng the roadwayat an i nt er sect i on or desi gnat ed cr osswal k orf or t he pur pose of ent er i ng or exi t i ng avehi cl e at t he cur b or f or some ot her l awf ulpur pose. Any pol i ce of f i cer observi ng anyper son vi ol at i ng t hi s pr ovi si on may r equest ororder such person t he [ si c] r emove themsel vesf r om such r oadway or t r af f i c i sl and and mayar r est such per son i f t hey f ai l t o compl y wi t hsuch r equest or or der .

The ensui ng Ci t y Counci l debat es wer e a mi x of r eact i ons.

Some counci l members obj ected t hat exi st i ng l aws al r eady r egul ated

i nt i mi dat i ng behavi or s and sever al pr ot est ed t hat t he pr i mar y

pur pose of t he or di nances was l ess t o enhance publ i c saf et y t han t o

el i mi nat e unsi ght l y panhandl i ng, despi t e t he mayor ' s espousal of

t he pr oposal s as ai med at r esol vi ng "pur el y a publ i c saf et y i ssue. "

The most promi nent r eser vat i ons wer e about t he ef f ect t he or di nance

woul d have on Wor cest er ' s t r adi t i onal " t ag days": f undr ai sers and

publ i ci t y campai gns f or l ocal char i t i es, ci vi c or gani zat i ons, and

pol i t i cal gr oups, whose par t i ci pant s commonl y used t r af f i c i sl ands

and medi ans. Whi l e sever al counci l members denounced t he t r adi t i on

as an "acci dent wai t i ng t o happen, " especi al l y when chi l dr en

- 5-



par t i ci pat ed, ot her s wor r i ed t hat pr ohi bi t i ng t ag days woul d undul y

har m l ocal ci vi c gr oups. Some of t hese qual ms wer e addr essed at a

meet i ng of t he Worcest er J oi nt Publ i c Heal t h & Human Servi ces and

Muni ci pal Oper at i ons Commi t t ee, wher e t he Ci t y Sol i ci t or sai d t hat

t he t ext of t he Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance al l owed t he pol i ce "an

el ement of di scret i on" i n i dent i f yi ng whi ch r oadsi de act i vi t y posed

a t hr eat t o publ i c saf et y and had t o be st opped. The vot e

appr ovi ng the pr oposal s nonet hel ess i ncl uded an expr ess r epeal of

t he Ci t y' s exi st i ng pr ovi si on f or t ag day per mi t s.

That vot e came i n J anuar y of 2013, when t he Ci t y Counci l

adopt ed t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance and the Pedest r i an

Saf et y Or di nance, codi f yi ng t hem at ch. 9, § 16( d) and ch. 13,

§ 77( a) of t he Wor cest er Revi sed Or di nances, r espect i vel y. Af t er

a "gr ace per i od" dur i ng whi ch t he pol i ce di st r i but ed f l yer s t el l i ng

panhandl ers and ot her Worcest er r esi dent s about t he newor di nances,

but made no ar r est s, t he pol i ce began enf orcement . Between March

1 and Mar ch 20, 2013, t hey ar r est ed f our i ndi vi dual s f or vi ol at i ng

t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance, i ncl udi ng one man arr est ed

t wi ce; al l f our wer e gi ven mul t i pl e war ni ngs about t he new r ul es

pr i or t o ar r est . The r ecor d shows no ar r est s f or vi ol at i on of t he

Pedest r i an Saf ety Or di nance. When pr otest ors st aged a smal l

demonst r at i on agai nst t he or di nances i n Febr uar y of 2013, f eat ur i ng

- 6-



i ndi vi dual s sol i ci t i ng donat i ons f r om t r af f i c i s l ands, t he pol i ce

di d not di st ur b t he pr ot est . 1

B.

Appel l ant s Rober t Thayer and Sharon Br ownson are homel ess

peopl e who r egul ar l y sol i ci t donat i ons on t he si dewal ks of

Wor cest er , commonl y st eppi ng i nt o t he r oads t o r ecei ve

cont r i but i ons. Bot h have been war ned by pol i ce t hat t hey f aced

ar r est unl ess t hey st opped panhandl i ng t hi s way. Appel l ant Tr acy

Novi ck i s an el ect ed member of t he Worcest er School Commi t t ee who

has cust omar i l y di spl ayed pol i t i cal si gns on medi an st r i ps and

t r af f i c ci r cl es dur i ng t he campai gn season.

I n May of 2013, Thayer , Br ownson, and Novi ck br ought t hi s

sui t chal l engi ng t he new or di nances as vi ol at i ng t hei r r i ght s under

t he Fi r st Amendment and the Due Pr ocess and Equal Protect i on

Cl auses of t he Four t eent h. They sought decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve

r el i ef and monetary damages. The Fi r st Amendment cl ai m has been

pr esent ed as a f aci al chal l enge based on subst ant i al over br eadt h,

and we cont i nue t o r egar d i t as such her e. The vagueness cl ai m i s

necessar i l y of t he as- appl i ed var i et y. See Hol der v. Humani t ar i an

Law Proj ect , 561 U. S. 1, 18- 19 ( 2010) ( "We consi der whether a

st at ut e i s vague as appl i ed t o t he par t i cul ar f act s at i ssue, f or

' [ a] pl ai nt i f f who engages i n some conduct t hat i s cl ear l y

1 The r ecor d does not i ndi cat e t hat t hi s pr ot est occur r eddur i ng t he Ci t y' s "gr ace per i od, " but nei t her does i t f or ecl ose t hepossi bi l i t y.

- 7-



pr oscr i bed cannot compl ai n of t he vagueness of t he l aw as appl i ed

t o t he conduct of ot her s. ' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Hof f man Est at es v. Fl i psi de, Hof f man Est at es, I nc. , 455 U. S. 489,

495 ( 1982) ) ) . The equal pr ot ect i on chal l enge seems t o i ncl ude bot h

var i et i es, as we wi l l ment i on agai n l at er .

The f ol l owi ng Oct ober , t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s deni ed a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

Al t hough none of t he appel l ant s had been ar r est ed under t he new

l aws, t he cour t f ound t hat al l t hr ee had st andi ng t o sue, because

al l engage i n act i vi t i es t hat r easonabl y l ead t hem t o expect t he

or di nances to be enf or ced agai nst t hem. But t he cour t f ound t hat

t hey had f ai l ed t o meet t hei r bur den of demonst r at i ng a l i kel i hood

of success on t he mer i t s of any of t hei r const i t ut i onal cl ai ms. As

t o t he Fi r st Amendment chal l enge, t he cour t di d not descr i be t he

cl ai m as a f aci al over br eadt h chal l enge. Af t er not i ng t hat t he

or di nances pr ohi bi t ed al l aggr essi ve sol i ci t at i ons and r oadsi de

demonst r at i ons, r egar dl ess of t he speaker ' s message or i deol ogy, i t

concl uded t hat t he r egul at i ons wer e cont ent - neut r al t i me, pl ace, or

manner r est r i ct i ons subj ect onl y t o i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. Because

t he or di nances f ur t her ed a subst ant i al i nt er est i n publ i c saf et y

and f r eedomf r omcoer ci on, wer e nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o pr ohi bi t onl y

aggr essi ve or di st r act i ng act i vi t y, and l ef t open ampl e al t er nat e

spaces f or sol i ci t at i on, t he cour t hel d t hat t he appel l ant s had

shown no pr obabi l i t y of demonst r at i ng a vi ol at i on. Wi t h r egar d t o

- 8-



t he appel l ant s' due pr ocess cl ai m t hat t he or di nances wer e

unconst i t ut i onal l y vague, t he di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t he ar gument

as " st r ai ned" and "di si ngenuous, " f i ndi ng t hat bot h or di nances

pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent det ai l t o const r ai n t he pol i ce' s di scr et i on i n

enf or ci ng t he new r ul es. Fi nal l y, t he di st r i ct cour t saw no

pr obabi l i t y of success i n t he appel l ant s' equal pr ot ect i on

chal l enge t hat t he t wo or di nances di scr i mi nat ed agai nst t he poor

and homel ess. Havi ng al r eady noted t he l ack of evi dence of uneven

enf or cement , t he cour t f ound t hat t he pr ovi si ons appl i ed f aci al l y

t o al l gr oups and t hat t he appel l ant s had f ai l ed t o r ebut t he

r ecor d evi dence suggest i ng t hat t he Ci t y Counci l was mot i vat ed by

l egi t i mat e concer ns about coer ci on and saf et y.

II.

I n assessi ng whet her t o gr ant or t o deny a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on, a di st r i ct cour t must addr ess f our consi der at i ons: "( 1)

t he pl ai nt i f f ' s l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s; ( 2) t he

pot ent i al f or i r r epar abl e har mi n t he absence of an i nj unct i on; ( 3)

whet her i ssui ng an i nj unct i on wi l l bur den t he def endant s l ess t han

denyi ng an i nj unct i on woul d bur den t he pl ai nt i f f s; and ( 4) t he

ef f ect , i f any, on t he publ i c i nt er est . " Gonzal ez- Dr oz v.

Gonzal ez- Col on, 573 F. 3d 75, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on f or abuse

of di scr et i on, i d. , and wi l l not r ever se unl ess t he di st r i ct cour t

made a mi st ake of l aw, cl ear l y er r ed i n i t s f act ual assessment s, or

- 9-



ot her wi se abused i t s di scret i on. I d. ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Lewi s,

517 F. 3d 20, 24 & n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( " I n pr act i ce, [ t he abuse of

di scr et i on] st andar d cont empl at es de novo r evi ew of abst r act

quest i ons of l aw" because "a mi st ake of l aw i s al ways an abuse of

di scret i on. ") .

A.

i.

Ther e i s no di sput e here t hat t he combi ned speech and

physi cal act i vi t y per f or med t o del i ver t he messages occur i n publ i c

f orums. See Uni t ed St ates v. Gr ace, 461 U. S. 171, 177 ( 1983)

( "[ P] ubl i c pl aces hi st or i cal l y associ at ed wi t h t he f r ee exer ci se of

expr essi ve act i vi t i es, such as st r eet s, si dewal ks, and par ks, ar e

consi der ed, wi t hout mor e, t o be publ i c f or ums. " ( quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . Thus, t he f i r st i ssue we addr ess i s whet her t he

r egul at i ons ar e based on t he cont ent of t he speech. I f yes, t he

st andar d of scr ut i ny i s st r i ct : t he r egul at i on "must be nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o pr omot e a compel l i ng Gover nment i nt er est , " such t hat no

" l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve woul d ser ve t he Gover nment ' s

pur pose. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pl ayboy Ent m' t Gr p. , 529 U. S. 803, 813

( 2000) . I f no, t he st andard i s l ess demandi ng: t he government "may

i mpose r easonabl e r est r i ct i ons on t he t i me, pl ace, or manner of

pr ot ect ed speech, " so l ong as " t hey ar e nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o serve

a si gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est " and " l eave open ampl e

al t er nat i ve channel s f or communi cat i on of t he i nf or mat i on. " War d

- 10-



v. Rock Agai nst Raci sm, 491 U. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) ( quot i ng Cl ar k v.

Communi t y f or Cr eat i ve Non- Vi ol ence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 (1984) ) .

Under t hi s mor e l eni ent " i nt er medi at e" scr ut i ny, a l aw need not be

t he " l east r est r i ct i ve" means of achi evi ng t he gover nment ' s

i nt er est , so l ong as t he i nt er est "woul d be achi eved l ess

ef f ect i vel y absent t he r egul at i on" and t he l aw does not "bur den

subst ant i al l y mor e speech t han i s necessary to f ur t her t he

gover nment ' s l egi t i mat e i nt er est s. " I d. at 798- 99.

I n det er mi ni ng whet her a par t i cul ar r egul at i on i s

cont ent - neut r al , t he pr i nci pal enqui r y i s " whet her t he gover nment

has adopt ed a regul at i on of speech because of di sagr eement wi t h t he

message i t conveys. " War d, 491 U. S. at 791. A r egul at i on t hat has

"an i nci dent al ef f ect on some speakers or messages but not others"

may st i l l qual i f y as cont ent - neut r al so l ong as t he r egul at i on "i s

j ust i f i ed wi t hout r ef er ence t o t he cont ent of t he r egul at ed

speech. " I d. ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . Af t er exami ni ng t he t exts and

i ndependent evi dence of i nt ent behi nd t he or di nances, we thi nk

t her e i s no ser i ous quest i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect i n

f i ndi ng t hat t he r est r i ct i ons wer e not based on t he cont ent of t he

speech wi t hi n t he terms of Fi r st Amendment doct r i ne.

To begi n wi t h, t he t ext of t he or di nances does not

i dent i f y or af f ect speech except by ref er ence t o the behavi or , t i me

or l ocat i on of i t s del i ver y, i dent i f yi ng ci r cumst ances that r ai se

a r i sk t o saf et y or t hat compr omi se the vol i t i on of a per son

- 11-



addr essed t o avoi d sol i ci t at i on: i t i s aggr essi ve, par t i cul ar l y

obt r usi ve or al ar mi ng or r i sky sol i ci t at i on t hat i s f or bi dden,

al ong wi t h di st r act i ng act i vi t y on t r avel ed r oadways and t r af f i c

i sl ands.

Thi s i s not t o deny t hat cer t ai n subj ect s of speech and

even cer t ai n messages ar e associ at ed wi t h t he tar get ed behavi or .

Panhandl i ng and sol i ci t at i on of i mmedi ate donat i ons convey messages

of need, and wavi ng pl acar ds at t r af f i c i sl ands may of t en be

pol i t i cal expr essi on. But i f t he mer e associ at i on of cer t ai n

behavi or wi t h cer t ai n subj ect s wer e t o amount , i n i t sel f , t o a

cont ent basi s f or Fi r st Amendment scr ut i ny, t he poi nt behi nd

cont ent di scr i mi nat i on woul d be l ost . That poi nt i s t o bar t he

gover nment f r om suppr essi ng speech because i t di sappr oves t he

message, see Pl ayboy Ent m' t Gr p. , 529 U. S. at 812 ( "Laws desi gned

or i nt ended t o suppr ess or r est r i ct t he expr essi on of speci f i c

speaker s cont r adi ct basi c Fi r st Amendment pr i nci pl es. " ) , not t o

gi ve every message maxi mum prot ect i on no mat t er how or wher e or

when i t i s del i ver ed, cf . War d, 491 U. S. at 802 ( "That [ a

r egul at i on] may r educe to some degr ee t he potent i al audi ence f or

r espondent ' s speech i s of no consequence, f or t here has been no

showi ng that t he remai ni ng avenues of communi cat i on are

i nadequat e. " ) . Even a st at ut e t hat r est r i ct s onl y some expr essi ve

messages and not others may be consi dered cont ent - neut r al when t he

di st i nct i ons i t dr aws ar e j ust i f i ed by a l egi t i mat e, non- censor i al

- 12-



mot i ve. See Hi l l v. Col or ado, 530 U. S. 703, 724 ( 2000) ( f i ndi ng

st at ut e t hat di st i ngui shes "speech act i vi t i es l i kel y t o have

[ cer t ai n undesi r abl e] consequences f r om speech act i vi t i es . . .

t hat are most unl i kel y to have t hose consequences" t o be cont ent -

neut r al ) ; Cl at t er buck v. Ci t y of Char l ot t esvi l l e, 708 F. 3d 549,

556 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( "[ N] ot ever y cont ent di st i nct i on mer i t s st r i ct

scr ut i ny; i nst ead, a di st i ncti on i s onl y cont ent - based i f i t

di st i ngui shes cont ent wi t h a censor i al i nt ent t o val ue some f or ms

of speech over ot her s . . . . ") ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

To be sure, t here i s evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat over t he

cour se of sever al year s some publ i c of f i ci al s have been of a mi nd

t o suppr ess panhandl i ng, t hough not ot her f or ms of sol i ci t at i on,

r egar dl ess of depor t ment , l ocat i on, or ci r cumst ances, owi ng t o t he

i mpr essi on i t gi ves about t he soci al r esponsi bi l i t y of t he Ci t y

gover nment . But when t her e i s f ur t her evi dence t o l ook t o, t he

mot i ves of di scret e of f i ci al s ar e not necessar i l y to be t aken as

t he pr edomi nant i nt ent of t he l ocal gover nment . See Rhode I sl and

v. Nar r aganset t I ndi an Tr i be, 19 F. 3d 685, 699 ( 1st Ci r . 1994)

( "[ T] he over ar chi ng r ul e i s t hat ' st at ement s by i ndi vi dual

l egi sl at or s shoul d not be gi ven cont r ol l i ng ef f ect ' ; r at her , such

st at ement s are to be respect ed onl y t o the extent t hat t hey ' ar e

consi st ent wi t h t he st at ut or y l anguage. ' " ( quot i ng Br ock v. Pi er ce

Cnty. , 476 U. S. 253, 263 ( 1986) ) ) .

- 13-



The or di nances adopt ed her e come wi t h a preambl e and

accompanyi ng evi dence t hat pr ovi de good r eason t o accept t he

ost ensi bl e obj ect s of t he or di nances as t he t r ue ones, t hat i s, not

suppr essi ng cer t ai n ki nds of messages but r egul at i ng t hei r

del i ver y. The f i r st of t hese r easons i s t he f ai r ness of t he Ci t y' s

worki ng pr emi se t hat t here ar e part i cul ar , commonl y acknowl edged

ci r cumst ances, unr el at ed t o t he expr essi on of par t i cul ar vi ews and

messages, i n whi ch sol i ci t at i on can cause ser i ous appr ehensi veness,

r eal or appar ent coer ci on, physi cal of f ense, or even danger t o t he

per son addr essed or t o al l par t i es. We ar e not deal i ng her e, i n

ot her words, wi t h a mere at t empt t o suppress a message that some

peopl e f i nd di st ast ef ul f or i t s cont ent . Cf . For syt h Cnt y. , Ga. v.

Nat i onal i st Movement , 505 U. S. 123, 134- 35 ( 1992) ( "Speech cannot

be . . . puni shed or banned . . . si mpl y because i t mi ght of f end a

host i l e mob. " ) . A per son can r easonabl y f eel i nt i mi dat ed or

coer ced by per si st ent sol i ci t at i on af t er a r ef usal , and can

r easonabl y f eel t r apped when si t t i ng i n a si dewal k caf é or st andi ng

i n l i ne wai t i ng f or some servi ce or admi t t ance. And even t he

st out - heart ed can reasonabl y f ear assaul t when request s f or money

ar e made near an ATM wher e cash may have been obt ai ned and so

pr ovi de t empt at i on t o snat ch a wal l et or pur se. These ar e not

i magi nar y concer ns t hat smel l of pr et ext . As f or t he r est r i ct i ons

on usi ng t r avel ed r oadways or t r af f i c i sl ands f or sol i ci t at i on or

demonst r at i on, i t woul d be har d t o gai nsay t he Ci t y Manager ' s

- 14-



concl usi on t hat t he pr evi ousl y unr est r i ct ed pr act i ce was "an

acci dent wai t i ng to happen" even t hough i t had not happened yet .

The whol e poi nt of sol i ci t i ng or demonst r at i ng at such pl aces,

af t er al l , i s t o di st r act t he at t ent i on of dr i ver s t o some degr ee.

The Ci t y Counci l debat es f eat ured r ecur r ent concer ns, voi ced bot h

by dr i ver s and by f or mer par t i ci pant s i n r oadsi de demonst r at i ons,

t hat t ag days and other expr essi ve assembl i es on medi ans were

danger ous f or par t i ci pant s and dr i ver s al i ke. I n sum, common

exper i ence conf i r ms t hat t he Ci t y has i dent i f i ed behavi or and

ci r cumst ances t hat i t may f ai r l y be concerned about , however much

t he behavi or i s associ at ed wi t h cer t ai n sor t s of messages.

Not onl y ar e t her e t hus af f i r mat i ve i ndi cat i ons of a

behavi or al obj ect i ve behi nd t he or di nances, but a dear t h of t he

cl assi c i ndi cat or s of cont ent basi s. The most obvi ous

mani f est at i on of cont ent basi s, di scr i mi nat i on t ur ni ng on a

speaker ' s vi ewpoi nt , i s of cour se absent her e. Whi l e t her e ar e no

r est r i ct i ons on messages di scour agi ng sol i ci t at i on, as opposed t o

encour agi ng i t , t hat i s i nsi gni f i cant si mpl y because t her e i s no

evi dence or common exper i ence of any such speakers operat i ng on t he

si dewal ks t o di ssuade pot ent i al donor s.

Nor does i t s l i mi t at i on t o sol i ci t at i ons f or "i mmedi at e"

donat i ons of money r ender t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance

cont ent - based as Fi r st Amendment doct r i ne empl oys t he t erm. Even

assumi ng t hat t he ban on i mmedi ate donat i ons i s a cont ent

- 15-



di st i nct i on, an assumpt i on whi ch f i nds scant suppor t i n t he case

l aw, see I nt ' l Soc' y f or Kr i shna Consci ousness, I nc. v. Lee, 505

U. S. 672, 704- 05 ( 1992) ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng) ( f i ndi ng t hat a

ban on di r ect donat i ons s i mpl y "l i mi t [ ed] t he manner of t hat

expr essi on t o f orms ot her t han t he i mmedi ate r ecei pt of money") ;

I SKCON of Pot omac, I nc. v. Kennedy, 61 F. 3d 949, 954- 55 (D. C. Ci r .

1995) ( hol di ng t hat a ban on i mmedi ate donat i ons " does not . . .

t ot al l y pr ohi bi t a t ype of expr essi on or a speci f i c message;

r ather , i t merel y regul ates t he manner i n whi ch t he message may be

conveyed" ) , t hat di st i nct i on al one does not r ender t he or di nance

cont ent - based so l ong as i t r ef l ect s a l egi t i mat e, non- censor i al

gover nment i nt er est . See Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 724 ( st at ut e cont ent -

neut r al , despi t e i t s expr ess rest r i ct i ons on "or al pr ot est ,

educat i on, or counsel i ng, " wher e cont ent di st i nct i on f ur t her s non-

censor i al gover nment i nt er est ) . I n t hi s case, t he l i mi t at i on of

t he rest r i ct i ons i n t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance t o

sol i ci t at i ons f or i mmedi at e donat i ons of money r ef l ect s t he

r el at i onshi p bet ween aggr essi ve st r eet behavi or s and cer t ai n

cat egor i es of messages. " I n- per son sol i ci t at i on of f unds, when

combi ned wi t h i mmedi ate r ecei pt of t hat money, cr eat es a r i sk of

f r aud and dur ess t hat i s wel l r ecogni zed, and t hat i s di f f er ent i n

ki nd f r om ot her f or ms of expr essi on or conduct . " Lee, 505 U. S. at

705 ( Kennedy, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment s) .

- 16-



As f or t he mor e gener al cat egor y of subj ect mat t er

di scri mi nat i on ( based on t he subj ect of a sol i ci t at i on, say, or of

a pol i t i cal pl acar d) , t hi s f or mof sel ect i vi t y i s not onl y mi ssi ng

her e; i t s ver y absence i s one of t he gr ounds f or t he appel l ant s'

cl ai mof over br eadt h. Gi r l Scout cooki e sel l er s and Sal vat i on Ar my

bel l - r i nger s are as much subj ect t o the Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng

Or di nance as t he homel ess panhandl er . Nor do we di scount t he

i ncl usi on of t he char i t abl e sol i ci t or s wi t hi n t he scope of t he

r egul at i on as mer el y cosmet i c over l ay. Whi l e i t i s appar ent l y t r ue

t hat t hose who sol d cooki es or hel d out t he t ambour i ne were f r ee t o

sol i ci t ad l i b bef ore panhandl i ng became common, t hat f act shows

nothi ng more than t he need f or a publ i c pr act i ce to reach some

cri t i cal di mensi on bef or e i t i s wor t h t he ef f or t t o r egul at e,

coupl ed wi t h t he Ci t y' s sense t hat any regul at i ng i t does do must

be evenhanded.

The same concl usi on of no appar ent i nt ent t o suppress a

par t i cul ar vi ewpoi nt or subj ect i s t r ue as t o t he Pedest r i an Saf et y

Or di nance. Whi l e i t wi l l unquest i onabl y l i mi t pol i t i cal

campai gni ng, i t dr aws no l i ne by par t y or posi t i on or cause, and i t

cover s sol i ci t at i on f or money as wel l as f or vot es. 2 Cf . ACORN v.

2 Whi l e t he r ecor d cont ai ns cl ai ms t hat t he or di nance i sdi spr opor t i onal l y enf or ced agai nst panhandl er s, a cour t woul d needa devel oped argument based on part i cul ar i nst ances of enf orcementver sus compl ai sance bef or e consi der i ng a possi bl e i nf er ence of cont ent di scr i mi nat i on behi nd t he r egul at i ons. Thi s i s al so oneanswer t o the appeal based on t he cl ai med vi ol at i on of equalpr ot ect i on, ment i oned l at er .

- 17-



Ci t y of New Or l eans, 606 F. Supp. 16, 22- 23 ( E. D. La. 1984)

( appl yi ng cont ent - neut r al i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny t o or di nance

pr ohi bi t i ng sol el y "sol i ci t at i on f or f unds") .

These consi der at i ons suppor t accept ance of t he pr ef ace t o

t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance, wi t h i t s st atement s of

f i ndi ngs and pol i cy poi nt i ng t o behavi or al , not censor i al ,

obj ect i ves. That pr ef at or y t ext r ecogni zes t he per t i nence of t he

Fi r st Amendment t o al l of t he r egul at ed behavi or , panhandl i ng

i ncl uded, and i t det ai l s t he ci r cumst ances l i kel y to gi ve r i se t o

act ual or per cei ved coer ci on and f ear . The pr ef ace and t he

oper at i ve pr ovi si ons t hus j i be i n suppor t i ng a f i ndi ng of t he

Ci t y' s good f ai t h, f or whi ch t her e i s f ur t her conf i r mat i on i n t he

Ci t y Manager ' s repor t pr oposi ng adopt i on of t he or di nances. Cf .

Cl at t er buck, 708 F. 3d at 559 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat an

or di nance regul at i ng monet ar y sol i ci t at i ons may be cont ent - neut r al

wher e j ust i f i ed by non- censor i al i nt er est s l i ke publ i c saf et y and

wher e "t he gover nment ' s j ust i f i cat i on f or t he r egul at i on [ i s]

est abl i shed i n t he r ecor d") .

The appel l ant s seek t o t urn t hi s r epor t i nt o evi dence of

t he Ci t y' s di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent , emphasi zi ng sol el y a st at ement at

t he begi nni ng of t he document . That sent ence r ef er s to t he

Manager ' s pr i or pr esent at i on t o the Ci t y Counci l of "st r at egi es

ai med at r educi ng t he i nci dence of panhandl i ng i n our communi t y, "

a recol l ect i on t hat coul d be consi st ent wi t h ani mus agai nst t he

- 18-



communi cat i ve cont ent of panhandl i ng ( al bei t not unequi vocal

evi dence of i t ) . But t he r epor t goes on i n some det ai l t o descr i be

t he Ci t y' s i nvest i gat i ons i nt o t he soci al condi t i ons t hat l ed t o

t he evi dent homel essness and beggi ng and t he Ci t y' s ef f or t s t o

connect t he dest i t ut e wi t h pr ovi der s of f ood, shel t er , and wor k, as

wel l as i t s ongoi ng concer ns about saf et y hazar ds r esul t i ng f r om

panhandl i ng. I t gi ves an account of a muni ci pal gover nment t r yi ng

t o r el i eve t he danger ous ef f ect s of pover t y, not muzzl e t he poor .

Taken as a whol e, t her e i s no basi s f or di scount i ng t he r epor t ' s

concl usi on t hat publ i c saf et y was t he dr i vi ng f or ce of t he pr oposal

t o dr aw t he l i nes set out i n t he chal l enged or di nances.

I n f i ne, t he di str i ct cour t had a suf f i c i ent basi s i n

t ext , common exper i ence, and evi dence of t he Ci t y' s i nt ent t o

concl ude that t he or di nances were not desi gned t o suppr ess messages

expr essed by panhandl er s, Gi r l Scout s, t he Sal vat i on Ar my,

campai gni ng pol i t i ci ans, or anyone el se subj ect t o r est r i ct i on.

The or di nances ar e t her ef or e subj ect t o scr ut i ny as cont ent - neut r al

t i me, pl ace, and manner r egul at i ons.

ii.

The Fi r st Amendment scr ut i ny appl i cabl e t o cont ent -

neut r al t i me, pl ace, or manner r egul at i ons l i ke t he Ci t y' s

or di nances i s t he i nt er medi at e st andard: t hey must be nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o ser ve a si gni f i cant gover nment al pur pose whi l e l eavi ng

open adequate al t ernat i ve channel s of communi cat i on. Ward, 491

- 19-



U. S. at 791. The st andar d of nar r ow t ai l or i ng, i n t ur n, r equi r es

t hat a r egul at i on pr omote t he government al obj ect i ve more

ef f ect i vel y t han t he l aw woul d do i n i t s absence, wi t hout bur deni ng

subst ant i al l y mor e speech t han necessar y i n servi ng t he chosen

i nt er est . I d. at 799.

The appel l ant s her e have assumed t hat , r egar dl ess of

whet her t hey pr evai l on t hei r cl ai m t hat t he or di nances ar e

cont ent - based r est r i ct i ons, t he bur den r est s on t he Ci t y f r om t he

st ar t t o demonst r at e t hat t he appl i cabl e st andar d of scr ut i ny i s

sat i sf i ed. But t hat i s not t he l aw. The appel l ant s have chosen t o

chal l enge these or di nances f or f aci al over br eadt h, a st andar d under

whi ch "a l aw may be i nval i dat ed as over br oad" onl y i f "a

subst ant i al number of i t s appl i cat i ons ar e unconst i t ut i onal . . .

. " Uni t ed St at es v. St evens, 559 U. S. 460, 473 ( 2010) ( quot i ng

Washi ngt on St ate Gr ange v. Washi ngt on St ate Republ i can Par t y, 552

U. S. 442, 449 n. 6 ( 2008) ) . 3 I n a f aci al over br eadt h chal l enge, t he

cl ai mant has t he i ni t i al bur den t o make at l east a pr i ma f aci e

showi ng of such "subst ant i al " over br eadt h bef or e any bur den of

j ust i f i cat i on, be i t st r i ct or i nter medi at e, passes t o t he

3 A Fi r st Amendment f aci al over br eadt h chal l enge i s t husdi st i ngui shed f r om f aci al chal l enges i n ot her , non- speech- r el at edcont exts, whi ch hol d chal l enger s t o the hi gher st andar d of est abl i shi ng t hat "no set of ci r cumst ances exi st s under whi ch t he[ l aw] woul d be val i d. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sal er no, 481 U. S. 739, 745( 1987) .

- 20-



gover nment . 4 Vi r gi ni a v. Hi cks, 539 U. S. 113, 122 ( 2003) ( "The

over br eadt h cl ai mant bear s t he bur den of demonst r at i ng, ' f r om t he

t ext of [ t he l aw] and f r om actual f act, ' t hat subst ant i al

over br eadt h exi st s. " ( quot i ng New Yor k St at e Cl ub Ass' n. v. Ci t y of

New Yor k, 487 U. S. 1, 14 ( 1988) ) ) . And because t he bur den of

per suasi on when a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s sought f ol l ows t he

bur den at t he f i nal mer i t s st age, see Gonzal es v. O Cent r o Espi r i t a

Benef i cent e Uni ao do Veget al , 546 U. S. 418, 429- 30 ( 2006) , t he

appel l ant s must show a pr obabi l i t y of t hei r ul t i mat e success i n

demonst r at i ng subst ant i al over br eadt h at l east t o t he pr i ma f aci e

degr ee, see Gonzal es- Dr oz, 573 F. 3d at 79 ( pl ai nt i f f seeki ng a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on bear s t he bur den of showi ng a " l i kel i hood of

4 The cases t hat pl ace t he t hr eshol d bur den of showi ngover br eadt h on t he pl ai nt i f f do not descr i be that bur den as one att he pr i ma f aci e l evel . See, e. g. , Hi cks, 539 U. S. at 122; New Yor kSt at e Cl ub, 487 U. S. at 14. Requi r i ng si mpl y a pr i ma f aci e showi ng

does, however , make sense i f i t i s cor r ect , as has been assumed butnot hel d by t he Supr eme Cour t , t hat even i n a t i me, pl ace or mannercase the bur den i s on t he gover nment t o j ust i f y t he rest r i ct i on,once a pl ai nt i f f has made some overbr eadt h demonst r at i on. See,e. g. , Tur ner Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 664- 65 ( 1994)( cont r ol l i ng opi ni on of Kennedy, J . ) . I t woul d be st r ange t or equi r e t he pl ai nt i f f t o demonst r at e over br eadt h beyond t he pr i maf aci e l evel when t he pl ai nt i f f ' s showi ng shi f t s t he bur den t o t hegover nment t o demonst r at e, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat t he r est r i ct i oni s not subst ant i al l y over br oad. The cur r ent post ur e of t hi s case,however , makes i t unnecessar y t o resol ve t hi s quest i on about t hel evel of a pl ai nt i f f ' s r equi r ed demonst r at i on. Thi s i s an appeal

f r oma deni al of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, f or whi ch t he appel l ant smust show onl y a pr obabi l i t y of success, see Gonzal ez- Dr oz, 573F. 3d at 79, i ncl udi ng a pr obabi l i t y of maki ng t hi s t hr eshol doverbr eadt h showi ng. Si nce a bur den of demonst r at i on t o a pr obabl epr i ma f aci e degr ee i s mor e met aphysi cal t han pr act i cal , we wi l lspeak of t he appel l ant s' bur den si mpl y as maki ng a pr i ma f aci eshowi ng of subst ant i al over br eadt h.

- 21-



success on t he mer i t s" ) . We do not t hi nk t he appel l ant s have made

such a showi ng.

The poi nt of weakness i n t he appel l ant s' case f or a

pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on i s t hei r f ai l ur e ser i ousl y to addr ess t hei r

bur den of per suasi on t hat t he or di nances' over br eadt h i s

subst ant i al . When deal i ng wi t h a cont ent - neut r al speech

r est r i ct i on, we r ecogni ze a r egul at i on as subst ant i al l y over br oad

i f , but onl y i f , i t i s suscept i bl e t o a subst ant i al number of

appl i cat i ons t hat ar e not necessary t o f ur t her t he gover nment ' s

l egi t i mat e i nt er est . See St evens, 559 U. S. at 473. I n t hi s way,

t he subst ant i al over br eadt h st andar d ant i ci pat es t he nar r ow

t ai l or i ng component of t he i nt er medi at e st andar d of scr ut i ny, i f

t he chal l enge pr oceeds t o a f i nal mer i t s det er mi nat i on. See War d,

491 U. S. at 799. The number of i mper mi ssi bl e appl i cat i ons, i n

t ur n, i s consi der ed bot h i n i sol at i on and as compar ed agai nst

i nst ances of pl ai nl y per mi ssi bl e r est r i ct i on. Compar e, e. g. ,

St evens, 559 U. S. at 474- 76 ( f i ndi ng ban on "depi ct i on[ s] of ani mal

cr uel t y" subst ant i al l y over br oad, absent any compar i son of ot her

l i kel y appl i cat i ons, wher e t he st at ut e by i t s t er ms ext ended t o

f oot age of hunt i ng or humane sl aught er) 5; Ci t y of Houst on, Tex. v.

Hi l l , 482 U. S. 451, 462, 466 ( 1987) ( f i ndi ng ban on speech t hat " i n

5 El sewher e i n t he St evens opi ni on, however , t he Cour t speaksi n t er ms of "subst ant i al number of [ unconst i t ut i onal ] appl i cat i ons. . . j udged i n r el at i on t o t he st at ut e' s pl ai nl y l egi t i mat esweep. " 559 U. S. at 473 ( quot i ng Washi ngt on St ate Gr ange v.Washi ngt on St at e Republ i can Par t y, 552 U. S. 442, 449 n. 6 (2008) ) .

- 22-



any manner . . . i nt er r upt [ s] " a pol i ce of f i cer subst ant i al l y

over br oad, absent compar i sons, wher e t he st at ut e was " not l i mi t ed

t o f i ght i ng wor ds" or "obscene or oppr obr i ous l anguage, " but

addi t i onal l y "cr i mi nal i ze[ d] a subst ant i al amount of

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed speech") , wi t h Hi cks, 539 U. S. at 123- 24

( f i ndi ng no subst ant i al over br eadt h wher e t r espass pol i cy appl i ed

t o "str ol l ers , l oi t erers , drug deal ers , r ol l er skat ers , bi rd

wat cher s, soccer pl ayer s, and ot her s not engaged i n

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct - - a gr oup t hat woul d seemi ngl y

f ar out number Fi r st Amendment speakers" ) ; New Yor k v. Ferber , 458

U. S. 747, 773 ( 1982) ( f i ndi ng no subst ant i al over br eadt h i n an

ant i - chi l d por nogr aphy st at ut e because "we ser i ousl y doubt . . .

t hat [ educat i onal , medi cal , or ar t i st i c wor ks f eat ur i ng nude

chi l dr en] amount t o mor e t han a t i ny f r act i on of t he mat er i al s

wi t hi n t he st at ut e' s reach") . Af t er al l , t her e i s no good r eason

t o al l ow f aci al chal l enges when t he l i kel i hood of unj ust i f i abl e

appl i cat i ons i s l i mi t ed t o a t r i vi al number or dwar f ed by per f ect l y

const i t ut i onal i mposi t i ons. The consequence i s t hat when t he

i nf i r mi t y rai sed by a f aci al chal l enge does not by i t s nat ur e

i nf ect ever y possi bl e appl i cat i on ( as i n a pat ent at t empt t o

suppr ess unwant ed pol i t i cal speech, say) t he t est l ooks bot h t o

absol ut e and comparat i ve vol ume, and each i nf orms a cour t ' s

j udgment about t he ser i ousness of any bur den.

- 23-



And i t i s j udgment t hat i s necessar i l y i nvol ved. Despi t e

t he case l aw' s vocabul ar y of si ze and "r el at i ve" l i kel y

appl i cat i ons, neat l y mat hemat i cal est i mat es are not t o be expect ed,

i f onl y because t he r equi r ed quant i f i cat i on i s a pr edi ct i ve

exerci se based on common exper i ence and such evi dence as t her e may

be about a r egul at i on' s l i kel y appl i cat i ons. What i s subst ant i al

and what i s t r i vi al , what i s subst ant i al i n r el at i on t o anot her

number , t hese ar e enqui r i es t oo var i ous t o be capt ur ed by si mpl e

ar i t hmet i c.

I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess t he

appel l ant s' bur den of demonst r at i ng pr i ma f aci e subst ant i al

over br eadt h. The cour t proceeded di r ect l y t o hol d t he or di nances

up t o i nt er medi at e scrut i ny, and deni ed a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on on

t he gr ounds t hat t he appel l ant s f ai l ed t o show a l i kel i hood of

ul t i mat e success on t he mer i t s. 6 We do not need t o f ol l ow t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng t hat f ar , however , because we f i nd t hat

t he appel l ant s have f ai l ed t o make t he pr i ma f aci e showi ng

necessary t o t r i gger t he gover nment ' s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat t he

or di nances sur vi ve i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. Based on t hei r

pr esent at i on of evi dence, we f i nd t hat ( subj ect t o one

qual i f i cat i on) t he appel l ant s have not made a pr i ma f aci e

demonst r at i on t hat t he or di nances are suscept i bl e to a subst ant i al

6 I t i s uncl ear whet her t he di st r i ct cour t ski pped t heappel l ant s' pr i ma f aci e bur den of demonst r at i ng subst ant i alover br eadt h or i mpl i ci t l y f ound t hat t hey had met t hei r bur den.

- 24-



number of i l l egi t i mat e appl i cat i ons, ei t her i n i sol at i on or j udged

r el at i ve t o t hei r l egi t i mat e sweep. 7

Appel l ant s woul d have us see over br eadt h, f or i nst ance,

i n t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance' s bans on sol i ci t i ng wi t hi n

20 f eet of a bus st op even by a hand- hel d si gn, or l ess t han 20

f eet away f r om peopl e wai t i ng i n l i ne t o get i nt o a r est r oom or

t heat er , or even by a pol i t e r equest f or r econsi der at i on af t er

r ej ect i on. We agr ee t hat some of t hese pr ohi bi t i ons ar e at t he f ar

si de of t he r easonabl e r each of t he Ci t y' s obj ect i ves. But i t i s

al so t r ue t hat peopl e can f eel i nt i mi dat ed or undul y coer ced when

7 The qual i f i cat i on i s t hi s. When t he appeal was f i r st f i l ed,t hi s cour t ' s dut y panel enj oi ned enf or cement of § 16( e) ( 11) , t heni ght t i me sol i ci t at i on pr ohi bi t i on, pendi ng appeal . That pr ovi si onhas t he ef f ect of f or bi ddi ng eveni ng sol i ci t at i ons by def i ni ngunl awf ul l y "aggr essi ve" char act er t o i ncl ude "sol i ci t i ng any per soni n publ i c af t er dar k, whi ch shal l mean t he t i me f r om one- hal f hourbef or e sunset t o one- hal f hour af t er sunr i se. " The Ci t y' s response

t o t hi s i nj unct i on has been l i mi t ed t o gener al r ef er ences t o t heni ght t i me ban as one of t he ser i es of pr ohi bi t i ons. Under t heci r cumst ances we woul d have di scr et i on t o t r eat t he Ci t y' sobj ect i on as wai ved under t he rul e hol di ng unf ocused, gl anci ngr ef er ences t o an i ssue i nsuf f i ci ent t o l i t i gat e i t . See Di Mar co-Zappa v. Cabani l l as, 238 F. 3d 25, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( "Si mpl ynot i ng an ar gument i n passi ng wi t hout expl anat i on i s i nsuf f i ci entt o avoi d wai ver . ") . But we wi l l go f ur t her and say t hat , i n t heabsence of an evi dent i ar y r ecor d on t he subst ant i al i t y of over br eadt h on t hi s poi nt , t he i mpl i ci t f i ndi ng of t he dut y panelseems sound, i f onl y because the pr ohi bi t i on extendi ng t o t he t i mebef or e sunset and af t er sunr i se wi l l pr obabl y pr event a subst ant i al

amount of unexcept i onabl e sol i ci t at i on, and we have no sense of t heamount of af t er - dar k act i vi t y t hat mi ght be af f ect ed on t hel egi t i mat e gr ound t hat unwant ed cont act wi t h st r anger s i n t hedar kness can r easonabl y r ai se appr ehensi ons. Our deci si on t o l eavei nt act t hi s t empor ar y i nj unct i on l eaves t he Ci t y f r ee t o cont estt he mat t er f ol l owi ng r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi der t her equest s f or per manent r el i ef .

- 25-



t hey do not want t o gi ve t o t he sol i ci t or st andi ng cl ose t o a l i ne

t hey must wai t i n f or a bus or a movi e. Si mi l ar l y, t he meek r epeat

sol i ci t or may j ust i f y no concer n at al l , but t he one who shout s or

even r ai ses her voi ce i s qui t e di f f er ent .

Even t he most i nt ui t i vel y appeal i ng of al l t he

appel l ant s' cl ai ms, goi ng t o t he ban on r equest s by usi ng a si gn

wi t hi n 20 f eet of t he l i st ed l i nes and l ocat i ons, does not pr ompt

adequat e support t o meet t hei r bur den. Twent y f eet i s not ver y

f ar , bei ng wi t hi n t he r ange of audi bl e conver sat i on, and a si gn

r equest t hat cl ose woul d r easonabl y gi ve ri se t o di scomf or t t o

someone st uck at a bus s t op, and coul d def i ni t el y pr oduce

appr ehensi veness i n someone obvi ousl y possessi ng f r esh cash. The

degr ee of each woul d pr obabl y vary dependi ng on whether t he si gn-

hol der was j ust movi ng al ong or st andi ng st i l l , i nt ent on one

per son. As to t he movi ng sol i ci t or , t he 20 f oot r est r i ct i on at t he

bus st op i s pr obabl y t oo br oad, but t he cont r ar y i s pr obabl y t r ue

i n t he case of a st at i onar y si gn- hol der st ar i ng at a l one

i ndi vi dual wai t i ng f or a bus. And as t o t he ATM pat r on, t her e i s

no apparent overbr eadt h, however we consi der var i abl es.

We coul d go on, but t hese exampl es poi nt out t he f ai r l y

debat abl e char act er of even t he r est r i ct i ons t hat ar e easi est t o

chal l enge, and the appel l ant s make no at t empt t o show t he rel at i ve

l i kel y f r equenci es of t he or di nances' cont r over si al ver sus

obvi ousl y accept abl e appl i cat i ons i n t he ci r cumst ances speci f i ed.

- 26-



The best we can concl ude i s t hat t her e i s probabl y some

over br eadt h, but not appar ent l y t o a subst ant i al degr ee. The

upshot i s t hat t he appel l ant s have shown nei t her absol ut el y nor

compar at i vel y t hat t he pr ovi si ons ci t ed ar e suscept i bl e t o

subst ant i al l y over br oad appl i cat i on.

The same poi nt i s t r ue wi t h r espect t o t he chal l enge t o

t he Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance, l i mi t i ng t r af f i c i sl ands and

r oadways t o i nt ended t r avel as commonl y underst ood. The appel l ant s

i nt r oduced a phot o of a t r af f i c i sl and wi t h har dl y any near by

t r af f i c and a sol e pedest r i an l i nger i ng t her e wi t h hi s hands i n hi s

pocket s, al ong wi t h anot her phot o of peopl e hol di ng t hr ee si gns i n

a t raf f i c ci rc l e. I f t he f i rs t were represent at i ve of al l ci t y

t r af f i c i sl ands dur i ng al l par t s of t he day when t her e ar e bot h

t r af f i c and peopl e desi r i ng t o use t he i sl ands f or some pur pose

ot her t han cr ossi ng t he st r eet , t her e woul d pr obabl y be f ew i f any

appl i cat i ons of t he or di nance t hat woul d serve t o r educe hi ghway

hazar d. Nor f or t hat mat t er woul d t here appear t o be any

communi cat i ve act i vi t y t o be pr otected. But everyone knows that

t r af f i c i sl ands do not l ook t hi s way al l day, and t hi s f act i s

enough t o suggest t he pr obabl e i nsi gni f i cance of t hi s pi ece of

evi dence. Peopl e who hol d si gns t o get at t ent i on, f or exampl e, do

not st and on a t r af f i c i sl and at t i mes when car s are spar se; i n t he

r eal wor l d i t i s t hus unl i kel y t hat t her e wi l l be any occasi on f or

t he or di nance even t o be appl i ed under t he hi ghway condi t i ons

- 27-



shown. See Hi cks, 539 U. S. at 122 ( r equi r i ng a chal l enger t o

demonst r at e subst ant i al over br eadt h " f r omt he t ext of [ t he l aw] and

f r om act ual f act " ( quot i ng New Yor k St at e Cl ub, 487 U. S. at 14) ) .

The same t hi ng i s t r ue of t he second phot o, whi ch shows si gn

car r i er s but no car s. I nci dent al l y, however , t he second phot o does

suf f i ce t o show how di st r act i ng t he behavi or of t hose si gn car r i er s

woul d be, and how danger ous, i f t hey wer e di spl ayi ng t hei r si gns

dur i ng busy hour s wi t h many dr i ver s who coul d be di st r act ed.

Agai n, t he appel l ant s' evi dence i ndi cat es no subst ant i al

over br eadt h i n ei t her posi t i ve or compar at i ve t er ms, and t he

appel l ant s have not di r ect ed us t o r ecor d evi dence i ndi cat i ng

ot her wi se, or t o evi dence t hat t he pol i ce ar e f ai l i ng t o

di f f er ent i at e bet ween hazardous and beni gn condi t i ons when or der i ng

demonst r ator s t o l eave or be char ged wi t h a vi ol at i on. 8

8

The appel l ant s ci t e t hr ee cases out si de t hi s Ci r cui t t hathave f ound bans on r oadsi de sol i ci t at i ons t o be subst ant i al l yoverbr oad. None of t hese cases expr essl y addr essed t hechal l enger ' s pr i ma f aci e bur den to demonst r at e subst ant i alover br eadt h. Even assumi ng t hat t hose cour t s i mpl i ci t l y f ound apr i ma f aci e showi ng of subst ant i al over br eadt h, however , t wo of t hebans consi der ed wer e br oader on t hei r f ace than t he Pedest r i anSaf et y Or di nance i n t hat t hose bans extended t o al l publ i c st r eet sand si dewal ks. See Comi t e de J ornal eros de Redondo Beach v. Ci t yof Redondo Beach, 657 F. 3d 936, 941, 945- 47 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011)( f i ndi ng ant i - sol i ci t at i on or di nance bar r i ng i ndi vi dual s f r om"st and[ i ng] on a st r eet or hi ghway" over br oad wher e "st r eet " was

def i ned t o " i ncl ude, but not be l i mi t ed t o, r oadways, par kways,medi ans, al l eys, si dewal ks, cur bs, and publ i c ways") ; News &Sun- Sent i nel Co. v. Cox, 702 F. Supp. 891 ( S. D. Fl a. 1988)( f i ndi ng over br oad a ban on "any commer ci al use of . . . anyst at e- mai nt ai ned r oad, " def i ned t o i ncl ude "st r eet s, si dewal ks,al l eys, hi ghways, and ot her ways open t o t r avel by t he publ i c") . The t hi r d case, ACORN v. Ci t y of New Or l eans, 606 F. Supp. 16 ( E. D.

- 28-



The same f r ai l t y i nf ect s t he appel l ants' concer ns about

over br oad appl i cat i ons of t he ban agai nst i n- st r eet sol i ci t at i on i n

qui et , r esi dent i al nei ghbor hoods wi t h f ew car s goi ng back and

f or t h; i t i s sensi bl e t o assume t hat i n t hese st r eet s t her e wi l l be

l i t t l e or no sol i ci t at i on. The appl i cat i on of t he Fi r st Amendment

i s not t o t ur n on i mpl ausi bl e specul at i on. Cf . Hi cks, 539 U. S. at

122.

Based on t hi s r ecor d as t he appel l ant s have di r ect ed our

at t ent i on t o i t , t hey have f ai l ed t o car r y t hei r bur den of

demonst r at i ng l i kel i hood of success i n pr ovi ng t hat t he Ci t y' s

or di nances ar e subst ant i al l y over br oad. Whi l e t hey cer t ai nl y poi nt

t o some i nst ances i n whi ch appl yi ng t he ordi nances may r ai se

const i t ut i onal concer ns, t hey have pr ovi ded no gr ounds t o concl ude

even at t he l evel of pr i ma f aci e showi ng t hat t he scope of any

unj ust i f i abl e appl i cat i ons i s or wi l l be "substant i al " i n r el at i on

t o t he or di nances' pl ai nl y l egi t i mat e sweep.

La. 1984) , i nvol ved an or di nance pr ohi bi t i ng per sons f r omsol i ci t i ng f unds " i n a r oadway or on a neut r al gr ound, " def i ned as" t he medi an ar ea i n a di vi ded st r eet whi ch separ at es t r af f i cf l owi ng i n opposi t e di r ect i ons. " I d. at 19 & n. 6. The cour temphasi zed t hat some of t he "neut r al grounds" cover ed by theordi nance were "one hundr ed f eet or more across" ; t hat t he

or di nance appl i ed dur i ng t he ci t y' s f r equent st r eet f ai r s, whenmany st r eet s ar e cl osed t o vehi cul ar t r af f i c; and t hat t heor di nance f l at l y f or bade al l sol i ci t at i on r egar dl ess of i t sdi sr upt i ve condi t i ons. I d. at 19 n. 6, 22. Thi s ban t hus r eachedf ar wi der t han t he Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance, whi ch r equi r esi ndi vi dual s t o di sper se f r om a t r af f i c i s l and onl y af t er havi ngbeen gi ven due not i ce by pol i ce.

- 29-



B.

Beyond the over br eadt h speech chal l enge under t he Fi r st

Amendment , t he appel l ant s have st ated i ndependent equal pr otect i on

and due pr ocess cl ai ms under t he Four t eent h. Wi t h r egard t o equal

pr ot ect i on, t he appel l ant s gest ur e at bot h a f aci al and an as-

appl i ed chal l enge. They cl ai m t hat t he or di nances ar e f aci al l y

i nval i d because t hey wer e mot i vat ed by the Ci t y' s di st ast e f or i t s

poor and homel ess. See Cr awf ord v. Bd. of Educ. , 458 U. S. 527, 544

( 1982) ( "[ A] l aw neut r al on i t s f ace st i l l may be unconst i t ut i onal

[ under t he Equal Protect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment ] i f

mot i vat ed by a di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. " ) . Thei r as- appl i ed equal

pr ot ect i on chal l enge r est s on t hei r cont ent i on t hat t he Ci t y i s

sel ect i vel y enf or ci ng t he or di nances agai nst t hat gr oup. See

Mar t i n v. Wal t on, 368 U. S. 25, 28 ( 1961) ( "A l aw, f ai r on i t s f ace,

may be appl i ed i n a way that vi ol at es t he Equal Prot ect i on Cl ause

of t he Four t eent h Amendment . " ) .

We have al r eady spoken t o the f aci al el ement i n t he

cour se of t he Fi r st Amendment di scussi on, whi ch expl ai ns t hat t he

r ecor d i ndi cat es an ef f or t ai med at cer t ai n danger ous behavi or s,

not a muni ci pal i nt ent t o tar get a par t i cul ar message or t he cl ass

expr essi ng i t . Wi t h r espect t o t he as- appl i ed chal l enge, t he

appel l ant s have pr ovi ded no evi dence suggest i ng a di scr i mi nat or y

pat t er n i n t he Ci t y' s enf or cement of ei t her or di nance. The

appel l ant s f ocus on t he f act t hat t he Ci t y made no at t empt s t o

- 30-



di sper se a pol i t i cal pr ot est i n Febr uar y of 2013 under t he

Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance, whi l e ar r est i ng f our homel ess peopl e

i n Mar ch under t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance. Put t i ng asi de

whet her t he Febr uar y pr ot est t ook pl ace dur i ng t he "gr ace per i od"

i mmedi at el y af t er t he or di nances' enact ment , an i ssue unr esol ved by

t he r ecor d i n i t s cur r ent st at e, di f f er ent r at es of ar r est under

t wo di st i nct or di nances do not pr ovi de evi dence of sel ect i ve

enf or cement of ei t her one. The f act t hat t he Aggr essi ve

Panhandl i ng Or di nance may thus f ar have been enf orced onl y agai nst

t he poor , wi t h no f ur t her det ai l s about t he ci r cumst ances of t hose

ar r est s or t he pol i ce' s gr eat er l eni ency t owar d ot her gr oups, i s

not i n i t sel f pr obat i ve of di scr i mi nat i on. I f t he f ul l f act s of

t he Ci t y' s enf or cement pat t er ns si nce t he f i l i ng of t hi s sui t poi nt

mor e st r ongl y t o i nt ent i onal di scr i mi nat i on on any basi s, t he

appel l ant s may come f orward wi t h t he evi dence, and i nj ur ed persons

may f i l e as- appl i ed compl ai nt s on t he basi s of evi dence. We onl y

not e t hat , because nei t her weal t h nor homel essness i s a suspect

cl ass under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Myer s, 294 F. 3d 203, 209 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , any ef f or t t o show

di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement wi l l be subj ect t o t he def er ent i al

st andar d of r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny, Kadr mas v. Di cki nson Pub.

Sch. , 487 U. S. 450, 458, 461- 62 ( 1988) .

As f or due pr ocess, t he appel l ant s zero i n on t he

i mpr eci si on of cer t ai n l anguage, i mpl i cat i ng ( i n addi t i on t o

- 31-



pot ent i al over br eadt h) const i t ut i onal concer ns about f ai r not i ce.

Under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, a r egul at i on may be voi d f or

vagueness i f i t "f ai l s t o pr ovi de a per son of or di nar y i nt el l i gence

f ai r not i ce of what i s pr ohi bi t ed, or i s so st andar dl ess t hat i t

aut hor i zes or encour ages ser i ousl y di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 553 U. S. 285, 304 ( 2008) . The

appel l ant s cor r ect l y not e t hat , when a st at ut e "i nt er f er es wi t h t he

r i ght of f r ee speech or of associ at i on, a mor e st r i ngent vagueness

t est shoul d appl y. " Hof f man Est at es, 455 U. S. at 499. But

"per f ect cl ar i t y and pr eci se gui dance have never been r equi r ed even

of r egul at i ons t hat r est r i ct expr essi ve acti vi t y. " Wi l l i ams, 553

U. S. at 304. That a st at ut e' s l anguage may "pos[ e] di f f i cul t

quest i ons of exact l y" what ki nds of conduct i s pr oscr i bed i s not

suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n a vagueness chal l enge unl ess t he "pl ai nt i f f s

. . . pr ovi d[ e] [ a] speci f i c ar t i cul at i on of t he degr ee t o whi ch

t hey seek t o" engage i n t he conduct at i ssue. Humani t ar i an Law

Pr oj ect , 561 U. S. at 24- 25.

I n t hi s case, t he f ai r not i ce r equi r ement i s sai d t o be

f l out ed, f or exampl e, by t he pr ovi si on of t he Pedest r i an Saf et y

Or di nance t hat def i nes t r af f i c i sl ands as ar eas set asi de by pai nt

or const r uct i on and "not const r uct ed or i nt ended f or use" by

vehi cl es or pedest r i ans. Appel l ant s ask how t hey ar e supposed t o

know t he i nt ent . But t aki ng t he def i ni t i on whol e, i t i s har d t o

i magi ne di f f i cul t y i n under st andi ng t hat a space i dent i f i ed by

- 32-



pai nt or st r uct ur e and set i n t he mi dst of t r af f i c l anes was i t sel f

not i nt ended f or vehi cul ar or pedest r i an use, save as a cr osswal k.

Appel l ant s al so cont est t he or di nance' s except i on f or i ndi vi dual s

usi ng t r af f i c i sl ands and r oadways f or "some . . . l awf ul pur pose, "

ot her t han get t i ng out of mot or vehi cl es or cr ossi ng t he st r eet .

They posi t t hat i t coul d be r easonabl e t o cl ai m engagi ng i n

pol i t i cal speech and sol i ci t at i on as "l awf ul pur poses. " But

consi der i ng t hat t he or di nance expr essl y exempl i f i es a " l awf ul

pur pose" as get t i ng out of a car or cr ossi ng on a cr osswal k, t he

appel l ant s' suggest i ons cannot be t aken as ser i ous possi bi l i t i es.

Thi s " l awf ul pur pose" l anguage i s t hus di st i ngui shabl e f r om, say,

a pr ohi bi t i on agai nst any conduct t hat woul d unl awf ul l y "i nt er r upt

any pol i ceman i n t he execut i on of hi s dut y" i n an or di nance t hat

coul d not have been meant t o i mpose t he et i quet t e of t he dr awi ng

r oom on al l pol i ce- pedest r i an st r eet encount er s. See Hi l l , 482

U. S. 451 ( st r i ki ng down as voi d f or vagueness a st at ut e maki ng i t

"unl awf ul f or any per son t o assaul t , st r i ke or i n any manner

oppose, mol est , abuse or i nt err upt any pol i ceman i n t he execut i on

of hi s dut y" ( emphasi s omi t t ed) ) .

Nei t her can t he di st r i ct cour t be f aul t ed f or f ai l i ng t o

f ace r eal i t y i n seei ng no ser i ous vagueness pr obl em i n t he

Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng Or di nance' s pr ohi bi t i on on "cont i nui ng t o

sol i ci t " af t er r ecei vi ng a negat i ve r esponse, even as appl i ed t o

one hol di ng a si gn. I n t he expect abl e cour se, t he per son

- 33-



speci f i cal l y sol i ci t ed by means of a si gn wi l l move on and t he

sol i ci t or wi l l be i n no danger of t r ansgr essi ng t he or di nance; i f

t he sol i ci t or f ol l ows and gest ur es wi t h t he si gn, he or she wi l l

have commi t t ed a vi ol at i on. Thus, save f or odd si t uat i ons t hat can

ar i se under al most any st at ut e or r egul at i on, t he r i sk of

per pl exi t y i s not ser i ous.

Nor do we f i nd any er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l i ng

t o see a pr obabi l i t y of a due pr ocess vi ol at i on i n t he di scret i on

cr eat ed by t he Pedest r i an Saf et y Or di nance' s pr ovi si on t hat a

pol i ce of f i cer "may" or der a vi ol at or t o st op and "may" ar r est f or

non- compl i ance wi t h t he or der . "As al ways, enf or cement r equi r es

t he exer ci se of some degr ee of pol i ce j udgment , " and t he conf er r al

of enf or cement di scr et i on does not r ender a l aw i mper mi ssi bl y vague

as l ong as t hat j udgment i s appr opr i at el y "conf i ned. " Gr ayned v.

Ci t y of Rockf or d, 408 U. S. 104, 114 ( 1972) ( uphol di ng ant i - noi se

or di nance appl yi ng out si de school s agai nst voi d- f or - vagueness due

pr ocess chal l enge because t he ordi nance requi r ed "demonst r ated

i nt er f er ence wi t h school act i vi t i es") . The or di nances i n quest i on

her e si mpl y st at e expl i ci t l y what t he l aw pr ovi des i n any case:

di scr et i on i n enf or ci ng and pr osecut i ng under a r egul at i on i nt ended

t o pr event hazar dous act i on i n t he st r eet s. I f i t shoul d t ur n out

i n pr act i ce t hat t he pol i ce exer ci se t hei r di scret i on t o enf or ce

t he or di nance ar bi t r ar i l y, or i n a di scer ni bl y di scr i mi nat or y way,

- 34-



a f ur t her chal l enge may r ai se a due pr ocess or equal pr ot ect i on

cl ai m based on evi dence t o t hat ef f ect .

Fi nal l y, t he i mpr obabi l i t y of success on t he appel l ant s'

vagueness cl ai m i s appar ent f r om t hei r f ai l ur e t o i dent i f y any

speci f i c i nst ance of uncer t ai nt y on t hei r par t about t he st at us of

a t r af f i c i sl and, or t he l awf ul ness of cont i nui ng t o hol d a

sol i ci t at i on si gn, or t he l i kel i hood of pol i ce acti on, or any ot her

det r i ment t hat mi ght be at t r i but abl e t o a f ai l ur e of t ext ual

concr et eness. A vagueness cl ai mmust be speci f i c and as appl i ed t o

a gi ven pl ai nt i f f , not f aci al . "A pl ai nt i f f who engages i n some

conduct t hat i s cl ear l y pr oscr i bed cannot compl ai n of t he vagueness

of t he l aw as appl i ed t o t he conduct of ot her s. " Hof f man Est at es,

455 U. S. at 495. The appel l ant s' due pr ocess cl ai m comes down

pr i mar i l y t o ar gui ng t hat t he "out er bounds of [ t he or di nances] ar e

ent i r el y uncl ear . " Appel l ant s' Repl y Br . 21. Yet "even i f t he

out ermost boundar i es of [ a l aw] may be i mpr eci se, any such

uncer t ai nt y has l i t t l e r el evance . . . wher e appel l ant s' conduct

f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he ' har d cor e' of t he st at ut e' s

pr oscr i pt i ons. " Br oadr i ck v. Okl ahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 608 ( 1973) .

III.

Thi s case has proven t o be t i me- consumi ng, owi ng t o t he

pl enar y chal l enge t o t he or di nances, t o t he unset t l ed f i t of

var i ous el ement s of gover ni ng l aw wi t h each ot her , and t o the

appar ent vel oci t y wi t h whi ch t he r equest f or pr el i mi nar y rel i ef was

- 35-



pr epar ed f or hear i ng. The t r i al j udge t r eat ed t he pr ayer f or an

i ni t i al i nj unct i on wi t h gr eat car e, and we have spent mor e t i me on

i t t han we expected t o do.

But at t he end of t hi s par t i cul ar day, not hi ng has been

r eached except t he i ssue of ent i t l ement t o a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on. Ther e i s a l esson i n t hi s, bot h f or counsel wi t h t he

obl i gat i on t o pr esent t he case and f or t he cour t s t hat must manage

t he l i t i gat i on. Except f or i nst ances of f aci al chal l enge wher e a

r i ght t o at l east some pr el i mi nar y r el i ef i s not r easonabl y

debat abl e, t her e i s gr eat mer i t i n combi ni ng l i t i gat i on f or bot h

pr el i mi nar y and per manent or der s and expedi t i ng t he evi dent i ar y

hear i ng as much as a f ai r oppor t uni t y f or t r i al pr epar at i on wi l l

al l ow. Such pr ocedur al sel f - di sci pl i ne wi l l t end t o sof t en t he

si r en cal l of t he r epeat edl y di scour aged r esor t t o t he oppor t uni t y

f or f aci al chal l enges.

IV.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we AFFI RM t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on as t o al l pr ovi si ons of t he

chal l enged or di nances save f or t he Aggr essi ve Panhandl i ng

Or di nance' s pr oscr i pt i on on ni ght t i me sol i ci t at i on, see Wor cest er

Revi sed Or di nances, ch. 9, § 16( e) ( 11) , and REMAND t o t he di st r i ct

cour t f or pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. The mandate

will issue immediately, but without prejudice to any petition for

rehearing.

thayer v. worcester, ma, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents