475 F.Supp.3d 198
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- On December 4, 2017, Michael Picard distributed flyers and held a “Jury Info” sign on a public sidewalk outside the Bronx County Hall of Justice advocating jury nullification. He did not ask whether passersby were jurors.
- A state court officer arrested Picard under New York Penal Law § 215.50(7), which criminalizes calling aloud, shouting, or displaying signs within 200 feet of a courthouse when the speech concerns a trial then being held there.
- Picard was released the same day after the Bronx ADA declined prosecution for insufficient evidence; Picard thereafter sued state officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Picard challenged § 215.50(7) as a content-based restriction on speech in a traditional public forum, arguing facial invalidity and overbreadth; defendants contended the statute is narrowly tailored to protect trial integrity and public order.
- The court found the statute content-based (thus subject to strict scrutiny), acknowledged the government’s compelling interest in preserving judicial integrity, but held the statute not narrowly tailored and unsupported as necessary to achieve that interest.
- The court permanently enjoined enforcement of § 215.50(7), concluding Picard succeeded on the merits and satisfied equitable-injunction requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 215.50(7) is a content-based restriction in a public forum | Picard: statute targets speech about ongoing trials and therefore is content-based and triggers strict scrutiny | Defendants: statute is viewpoint-neutral and aimed at conduct (noise/signs) near courthouses, not content | Held: statute is content-based because enforcement requires examining message content; public sidewalks are a traditional public forum, so strict scrutiny applies |
| Whether the statute serves a compelling government interest | Picard: government interest cannot justify an unconstitutional, content-based ban | Defendants: statute serves compelling interest in protecting integrity of trials, jurors, witnesses, and court operations | Held: protecting judicial integrity is a compelling interest, conceded by both sides |
| Whether § 215.50(7) is narrowly tailored / least restrictive means | Picard: statute is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; less restrictive, content-neutral alternatives exist (trespass, obstruction, jury/witness-tampering laws, escorts) | Defendants: statute narrowly confines speech by place (200-ft) and manner (calling aloud, shouting, signs) near courthouses to prevent undue influence/disruption | Held: statute is not narrowly tailored; defendants failed to show necessity or that less-restrictive alternatives would be ineffective |
| Remedy — whether injunctive relief is appropriate | Picard: irreparable First Amendment injury and lack of adequate legal remedy warrant permanent injunction | Defendants: prosecutions are rare and statute serves public interest in fair trials | Held: injunction granted — Picard demonstrated irreparable harm, success on the merits, inadequate legal remedies, favorable balance of hardships, and public-interest support for enjoining enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (defines content-based regulation and triggers strict scrutiny)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (requires examination of message content to determine violations)
- Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) (content-based restrictions near foreign embassies unlawful even in public fora)
- Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (upheld narrowly tailored restricted zones at polling places under a demonstrated need)
- Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) (recognizes compelling state interests in safeguarding judicial integrity)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (discussion of public-forum principles and scrutiny for content-based limits)
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (public sidewalks are traditional public fora)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (facial overbreadth doctrine in First Amendment cases)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (government bears burden to show least restrictive means when plausible alternatives exist)
- United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (government must prove alternatives ineffective when less restrictive options exist)
- Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2005) (time, place, manner framework for public fora)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary and permanent injunctions)