Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood
671 F.3d 564
6th Cir.2012Background
- Englewood, Ohio banned door-to-door canvassing after 6 P.M. and before 9 A.M. via the 2004 and 2005 ordinances, with licensing and curfew provisions; OCA challenged as-applied and facial First Amendment violations and sought injunctive relief and damages.
- The 2004 ordinance imposed a 6 P.M. curfew and required licenses for soliciting, with exceptions; canvassers could not be licensed and still canvass if not soliciting donations.
- The 2005 ordinance kept licensing/curfew but added a do-not-solicit list and prohibited soliciting at doors displaying “NO SOLICITORS”; it mandated do-not-solicit-list participation by canvassers.
- The district court upheld the curfew, struck down the licensing requirements, and invalidated the 2005 do-not-solicit provision but allowed carrying a list.
- Englewood amended the code in 2010 (the 2010 Ordinance) and sought mootness considerations]; the parties appealed on multiple Fronts.
- The court ultimately remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion and addressed standing and the injunctive rulings aligned with the challenged provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 6 P.M. curfew is constitutional as applied. | OCA: curfew violates First Amendment as applied. | Englewood: curfew serves interests in privacy and crime control. | Curfew not narrowly tailored to privacy; not shown to meet intermediate scrutiny. |
| Standing to challenge the curfew-extension clause of the 2004 Ordinance. | OCA has injury-in-fact from discretionary waivers. | No ongoing injury post-waiver; mootness concerns. | OCA has standing to challenge curfew-extension clause; mootness not dispositive. |
| Constitutionality of the do-not-solicit-list provision of the 2005 Ordinance. | Carrying the list burdens speech; Watchtower concerns. | List-carriage not a prior restraint; not burdensome. | District court’s ruling upheld, 2010 ordinance not before this appeal; list-carriage remains constitutionally permissible. |
| Whether Englewood’s injunctions regarding the 2004/2005 ordinances should be affected by the 2010 amendments. | Remedy should reflect ongoing rights despite amendments. | Amendments moot or modify ongoing injunctive relief. | Injunctions affirmed subject to modification under Rule 60(b) discussions; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (U.S. 2002) (striking permit-based canvassing or related burdens on speech; informs intermediate scrutiny for time/place/m manner)
- Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1992) (governmental fees as content-neutral regulation; strict scrutiny considerations in resource allocation)
- Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1943) (curfew-based speech restrictions require careful balancing against rights)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (narrow tailoring standard for time/place/manner restrictions)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (U.S. 1994) (test for content-neutral regulations; intermediate scrutiny)
- Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (commercial speech duty; standard for evaluating speech restrictions)
- Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1988) (prior restraint/licensing concerns in First Amendment challenges)