Doe v. Jindal
853 F. Supp. 2d 596
M.D. La.2012Background
- Plaintiffs John and James Doe, registered sex offenders, challenge Louisiana's 14:91.5 Unlawful use of social media as unconstitutional.
- The Act, effective August 15, 2011, prohibits use or access to social networking sites, chat rooms, and peer-to-peer networks by certain offenders.
- Plaintiffs allege the Act is facially overbroad and violates First Amendment rights and Due Process for vagueness.
- Defendants point to exemption in 14:91.5(B) and a Department regulation to limit enforcement, arguing there is a potential cure.
- This court held a bench trial on November 2, 2011 and ultimately enjoined enforcement, finding the Act overbroad and vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the Act | Plaintiffs allege chilling effect suffices for standing. | Standing premised on speculative, non-justiciable injury. | Plaintiffs have standing due to self-censorship and credible chilling effects. |
| Is the Act facially overbroad under the First Amendment? | Act sweeps in protected speech beyond its aims. | Regulation could narrow the statute's scope and cure overbreadth. | Act is facially overbroad; regulation cannot cure the overbreadth. |
| Is the Act void for vagueness under Due Process? | Key terms undefined; creates fair-warning issues for ordinary people. | Regulation clarifies scope; ambiguity is limited. | Act is void for vagueness; lacks adequate notice and standards. |
| Can the promulgated regulation cure the Act’s constitutional deficiencies? | Regulation excludes only a narrow group and does not cover all offenders. | Regulation constrains enforcement and demonstrates narrowing construction. | Regulation does not cure; inapplicable to plaintiffs and insufficient as a cure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988) (facial challenges to overbreadth in First Amendment context)
- Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965) (standing and chilling effects in First Amendment enforcement)
- Hill v. City of Houston, 789 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1986) (narrow tailoring required to address legitimate interests)
- Carmouche v. Center for Individual Freedom, 449 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2006) (standing and chilling effect in First Amendment overbreadth)
- Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004) (limits on First Amendment standing and reasonable predictions)
- National Federation of the Blind of Texas, Inc. v. Abbott, 647 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2011) (standing and injury requirements in First Amendment challenges)
- Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) (overbreadth and construal principles in First Amendment analysis)