Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16002
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- CBR, a pro-life nonprofit, sues Janet Napolitano (DHS Secretary) and Eric Holder (Attorney General) challenging a purported Rightwing Extremist Policy (RWE Policy) and related DHS assessments.
- Amended Complaint alleges a policy created with private organizations (ADL, SPLC, NAF) to target right-wing extremists and critics of abortion and immigration.
- Plaintiffs assert First Amendment claims (speech and expressive association) and a Fifth Amendment Equal Protection claim against Defendants in both official and individual capacities.
- District court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding no actionable conduct, no time/place/manner restrictions, and no retaliation.
- Sixth Circuit affirms, holding the Amended Complaint lacks a plausible RWE Policy and fails to plead First or Fifth Amendment violations; many allegations deemed irrelevant or conclusory.
- Court applies Twombly/Iqbal standards and Mount Healthy framework to evaluate whether alleged conduct plausibly deterred protected speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs state a First Amendment retaliation claim | Cites RWE Policy actions deter protected activity | No plausible injury or causal link to protected activity | No plausible First Amendment retaliation claim |
| Whether the RWE Policy is plausibly alleged | Policy exists and targets right-wing extremists with enforcement | Amended Complaint fails to plead a concrete policy or its scope | RWE Policy not plausibly alleged |
| Whether any adverse action was motivated by protected activity | Actions reflect intent to suppress political speech | No factual context showing improper motive; actions tied to legitimate law enforcement | No plausible causal motive shown |
| Whether plaintiffs state a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim | Disparate treatment of proponents of opposing viewpoints | Plaintiffs fail to plead how similarly situated groups were treated differently | No equal protection claim pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Mount Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (formulates the Mount Healthy standard for retaliation claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; bare allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must include factual content showing plausible claim)
- Fritz v. Charter Tp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2010) (addressing retaliatory conduct and protected activity framework)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (multifactor test for retaliation claims in the Sixth Circuit)
- Gordon v. City of Warren, 706 F.2d 781 (6th Cir. 1983) (relevance of probable cause and good faith in law-enforcement actions)
- Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (probable cause relevance to First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejects bare, high-level motive allegations without factual support)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (equal protection framework invoked for federal government actions)
- Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Shelby Twp., 470 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2006) (disparate treatment analysis and similarly situated requirement)