Content area
Full text
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia, 589 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A plaintiff has standing to challenge a regulation alleged to burden freedom of expression where (1) there is a clear and credible statement of intent to engage in the prohibited conduct, and (2) there is a substantial and reasonable expectation that government will enforce the regulation. Furthermore, the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply when a plaintiff raises constitutional challenges in federal district court that are legally separate from the violations it is facing in the District's administrative proceedings. Appellants, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition ("ANSWER") and Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, are advocacy groups arguing that regulations regarding displaying posters in the District of Columbia violated their First Amendment and Due Process rights. The regulations impose limitations on noncommercial posters, specifically on the number of posters in a specific area, the manner in which posters are affixed, and the amount of time posters can remain posted. Under the ordinance political posters are afforded a less restrictive time period and posters that address neighborhood crime prevention are completely exempt from the time limits. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded that the organizations did have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. In applying the three-part test for challenging laws that burden First Amendment rights, the court of appeals held that the organization satisfied each element. First, rights protected by the First Amendment rights were being burdened because the time limits on the original regulations imposed discriminatory time limits for any speech other than speech related to political campaigns or crime prevention, and the size of the penalties implied that the regulations were strict liability regulations. Moreover, the District Department of Transportation's notice of rulemaking stated that the original regulation raised First Amendment issues. Second, the organization provided a credible statement of intent to engage in the prohibited conduct by the executive director's statement clearly indicating an intent to engage in the prohibited action. Third, there was more than a reasonable expectation that the government would enforce the regulation because the district had already brought enforcement actions. In addition, the court of appeals concluded that Younger abstention was improper because the constitutional challenges in the federal court were severable and independent from the violations the organization was facing in the administrative hearings, and Younger abstention is only proper when the federal court's relief would bar another court's consideration of the same issues. The court therefore reversed and remanded the organization's claims. (Jennifer Zimmermann)