Oberholzer, F. v. Galapo, S.
794 EDA 2020
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2022Background
- Appellees Frederick and Denise Oberholzer sought injunctive relief after Appellants Simon and Toby Galapo placed signs on their property with anti-hate/anti-racist messages aimed toward the Oberholzers’ home.
- Trial court first ordered the signs to face away from the Oberholzers’ property; messages were still readable through the signs’ backs.
- Trial court entered an amended injunction requiring the signs be faced away and made of opaque material so messages could not be seen from the Oberholzers’ home.
- The trial court applied a time, place, and manner analysis when fashioning the injunction.
- The Superior Court majority vacated the injunction and remanded to apply the Madsen standard for content-neutral injunctions restricting speech; Judge Stabile concurred with the legal summary but dissented as to remand.
- Judge Stabile argued the injunction was narrowly tailored, protected residential privacy, did not restrict content/number/time/location of signs (only orientation and opacity), and that the trial court’s error was harmless—so no remand was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for an injunction restricting content-neutral speech | Oberholzer: injunction is permissible to protect home privacy; should be assessed under Madsen but outcome stands | Galapo: injunction implicates First Amendment; trial court applied wrong standard (time/place/manner) so relief invalid | Judge Stabile: agrees Madsen is proper standard but finds trial court’s remedy meets Madsen; no remand needed (harmless error) |
| Whether the injunction burdened more speech than necessary | Oberholzer: injunction narrowly tailored (orientation + opacity) and does not restrict content, number, timing, or general location | Galapo: any court-ordered restriction on signage impermissibly burdens speech | Judge Stabile: injunction burdens no more speech than necessary to protect significant interest in home privacy; would affirm |
| Whether residential privacy is a sufficient government interest to justify the restriction | Oberholzer: privacy of the home is a compelling/significant interest—government may protect the unwilling listener | Galapo: contends First Amendment protection of protesters outweighs privacy interest here | Judge Stabile: recognizes strong state interest in home privacy (citing Frisby/Carey) and finds it supports the limited injunction |
| Whether remand is required when an incorrect legal standard was used | Oberholzer: remand unnecessary if error is harmless and correct standard would produce same result | Galapo: remand required because incorrect standard may have affected scope of relief | Judge Stabile: remand unnecessary—error harmless because remedy already satisfies Madsen; would resolve merits without remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (injunctions that affect content-neutral speech must burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (special constitutional protection for privacy of the home and the unwilling listener)
- Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (state interest in protecting tranquility and privacy of the home)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctive remedies involve heightened risks of censorship and must be carefully scrutinized)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (general rule: remand when reviewing court applied incorrect legal standard)
- In re M.B., 228 A.3d 555 (Pa. Super. 2020) (remand where trial court applied incorrect burden-of-proof standard and outcome could change)
- Barak v. Karolizki, 196 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. 2018) (remand required where trial court used wrong test for lis pendens and result could differ)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (court may correct error on the merits rather than remand in the interest of justice when appropriate)