6 F.4th 1247
11th Cir.2021Background
- Coral Ridge Ministries (a 501(c)(3) Christian media ministry) applied to AmazonSmile and was denied because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) listed it on SPLC’s online “Hate Map” as anti-LGBTQ.
- Coral Ridge sued SPLC for defamation and sued Amazon (and AmazonSmile Foundation) under Title II of the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination.
- The district court dismissed: defamation on First Amendment grounds (and for failure to plead actual malice), and Title II claims primarily because applying Title II as Coral Ridge urged would raise First Amendment problems.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations but requiring plausible factual support for legal conclusions.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: Coral Ridge failed to plead actual malice for defamation, and applying Title II to force Amazon to include Coral Ridge in AmazonSmile would violate Amazon’s First Amendment rights because Amazon’s donation choices are expressive conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation: Is SPLC’s “hate group” designation actionable and pleaded with actual malice? | SPLC’s label is false and defamatory; SPLC acted with malice in listing Coral Ridge. | SPLC’s definition/label is nondefamatory or ambiguous and Coral Ridge failed to plead SPLC subjectively doubted its designation. | Dismissed: Coral Ridge failed to plausibly plead actual malice. |
| Provability: Is the term “hate group” provably true or false? | The term can be defined and shown false as applied to Coral Ridge. | The term is contested/ambiguous and SPLC publishes its definition. | Court did not decide definitively; affirmed dismissal on actual-malice grounds. |
| Title II coverage: Does AmazonSmile’s charity-selection qualify as a “service/privilege/advantage” under Title II such that excluding Coral Ridge is unlawful? | AmazonSmile is a program of Amazon that provides a benefit; excluding Coral Ridge is discrimination under Title II. | Amazon controls donations and eligibility; forcing inclusion would compel Amazon to support speech it opposes and is protected. | Dismissed: Applying Title II as Coral Ridge urges would violate Amazon’s First Amendment rights. |
| First Amendment expressive-conduct question: Are Amazon’s donations/eligibility choices expressive (so protected)? | Donations result from customers’ choices; if customers choose, Amazon is not speaking and First Amendment shouldn’t block Title II. | Amazon pays and selects eligible charities; that choice conveys a message and is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. | Held protected: Amazon’s selection/donation is expressive; Hurley and related precedent bar compelling Amazon to subsidize/alter its expression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1995) (state public-accommodation law cannot be applied so as to compel or alter an organizer’s expressive choices).
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (public-figure defamation requires actual malice).
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (statements must be sufficiently factual to be proved true or false to be defamatory).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: courts ignore conclusory legal assertions).
- Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (U.S. 2014) (compelled subsidy of speech by a third party is generally impermissible).
- Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2018) (tests for expressive conduct; ask whether reasonable observer would view conduct as conveying a message).
- Berisha v. Lawson, 973 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2020) (actual-malice test requires showing defendant subjectively entertained serious doubts about truth).
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) (pleading standards for defamation and rejecting threadbare recitals).
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (actual-malice inquiry focuses on subjective belief about truth, not bad motive).