PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele
902 F. Supp. 2d 724
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- PG Publishing Co. sues Allegheny County and officials challenging §3060(d) on First/Fourteenth Amendment grounds via §1983.
- An Elections Division policy restricted recording inside polling places; PG sought injunction to permit media access.
- Judge James’ 2008 order allowed filming outside polling place but prohibited inside or within ten feet of entrance.
- Act 18 (2012) added ID requirement; PG sought amendment to permit recording of voters registering, not voting.
- PG amended complaint July 2012 adding Equal Protection claims; defendants moved to dismiss; consent-decree motions followed.
- Court dismisses amended complaint with prejudice, denies consent decree, and declines to entertain ongoing federal oversight of Pennsylvania election enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman barrier applies to PG’s claims? | PG seeks review of state action via federal court. | Plaintiff is challenging state-court judgment or enforcement. | Not barred; jurisdiction exists; not a case arising from state judicial proceedings. |
| Preclusion (claim/issue) bars PG’s claims? | Different constitutional theories and post-order conduct may revive claims. | Prior state judgment precludes relitigation of same or related issues. | Preclusion does not bar all claims; however, most constitutional claims lack identity with prior action. |
| Eleventh Amendment/official capacity immunity? | Seek monetary damages against Secretary and Division Manager. | Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against state officials in official capacity; injunctive relief may lie. | Monell/official-capacity claims for prospective relief survive; money damages barred. |
| First Amendment challenge to §3060(d) as applied to media? | §3060(d) violates press freedom and equal protection. | Generally applicable, content-neutral restriction; Burson/Beazon-type analysis controls. | §3060(d) passes intermediate scrutiny as applied to media; does not violate First/Fourteenth Amendments. |
| Consent decree to resolve case? | Consent decree appropriate to enforce media access. | Consent decree cannot override state law; lacks authority to alter §3060(d). | Denied; no basis to enter decree. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman confines; preclusion context explained)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (polling-place zone upheld as reasonable, content-neutral restriction)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for burdens on voting rights)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) (press access within general public restrictions; prisons analogy)