96 F. Supp. 3d 447
M.D. Penn.2015Background
- Enacted Oct. 21, 2014, the Revictimization Act, 18 Pa. Stat. § 11.1304, authorizes civil actions for injunctive and related relief by a victim, DA, or AG against an offender for conduct perpetuating the crime's continuing effect.
- Act defines broadly the parties who may sue and the conduct sanctionable, including mental anguish caused by ongoing offender conduct.
- Definition of “offender” is not provided in § 11.1304; Crime Victims Act defines “victim” with expansive family-related categories.
- Sponsor statements and legislative history depict the Act as preventing revictimization of victims and families, including cases like Abu-Jamal’s, and the Act’s passage with strong executive support.
- Plaintiffs in Abu-Jamal v. Kane and Prison Legal News challenge the Act as facially void for vagueness, overbreadth, and content-based regulation, and PLN additionally argues it is an unlawful prior restraint on speech.
- Court addresses threshold jurisdictional issues: standing and ripeness, with DA Williams moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and AG Kane’s standing treated differently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiffs vs. Williams | Plaintiffs claim imminent threat of enforcement by Williams. | Williams promised not to enforce pending outcome, eliminating imminent threat. | Standing lacking as to Williams; claims dismissed against Williams. |
| Standing of plaintiffs vs. Kane | AG may enforce the Act; threat is credible and ongoing. | AG did not disavow enforcement, so threat is not illusory. | Standing found as to Kane; court retains jurisdiction against AG. |
| Ripeness of pre-enforcement challenges | Challenges are ripe; broad First Amendment issues predominate and record undeveloped. | Lack of enforcement means nonjusticiable pre-enforcement claims. | Ripeness satisfied; constitutional challenges ripe for adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1988) (pre-enforcement standing when law targets plaintiffs directly)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (well-established standing/ ripeness principles in pre-enforcement challenges)
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (U.S. 1869) (jurisdictional dismissal when no case or controversy exists)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Planned Parenthood of Central N.J. v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2000) (pre-enforcement interests and credible threat considerations in First Amendment challenges)
- Pic-A-State Pa., Inc. v. Reno, 76 F.3d 1294 (3d Cir. 1996) (standing in pre-enforcement regulatory challenges when regulation directs plaintiffs)
- Aichele v. Lamone (Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele), 757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014) (pre-enforcement standing where statute directly regulates conduct of plaintiffs)