Comite De Jornaleros De Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach
657 F.3d 936
9th Cir.2011Background
- Day laborer organizations challenge Redondo Beach’s ordinance prohibiting standing on streets or highways to solicit employment, business, or contributions from vehicle occupants; ordinance defines street/highway broadly to include sidewalks and medians; 1987 enactment with 1989 expansion prohibiting drivers from stopping to hire laborers; 2004 Day Labor Enforcement Project led to numerous arrests; district court enjoined enforcement and awarded fees; en banc Ninth Circuit overruled ACORN consistency and held ordinance facially unconstitutional for lack of narrow tailoring; standing found for NDLON, with Comite having standing based on evidence; this appeal focuses on First Amendment facial challenge and severability issues; district court judgments affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Ordinance facially unconstitutional as time/place/manner restriction? | NDLON argues overbreadth impairs protected speech. | Redondo Beach contends narrower construction could limit only conduct causing traffic stops. | Yes; not narrowly tailored; facially invalid. |
| Is the Ordinance content neutral or content based on its text? | Solicitation of employment, business, or contributions is restricted, content-specific. | Ordinance targets conduct but not viewpoint. | Content-based on its face; subject to strict scrutiny. |
| Are there ample alternative channels of communication available? | Alternatives (print, centers) are inadequate to reach the Redondo Beach audience. | Some alternatives exist but not shown to be equally effective. | No—alternatives insufficient; overbreadth remains. |
| Should part (a) be severed from part (b)? | Part (a) unconstitutional; part (b) may stand. | Severability argued but not clearly raised; majority treats whole as inseparable. | Remand not to sever; decision vacated portioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 798 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1986) (upheld Arizona/phoenix ordinance as time/place/manner restriction preventing sidewalk solicitation at intersections)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time/place/manner, narrowly tailored, ample channels)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (3-part content neutrality analysis near health facilities; relevance to Hill’s approach)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1992) (content-based near polling places; distinguishes broad vs narrow speech restriction)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992) (content-based restrictions require strict scrutiny; fighting words framework)
- Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (sign restrictions; substantial protection for speech in public forums)
- Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1977) (for-sale signs; alternatives analysis for communication reach)
- Heffron v. Intl. Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (state fair context; alternate channels analysis in context of event restrictions)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1993) (commercial speech-like regulation; alternatives relevant to tailoring)