482 F.Supp.3d 1
D.P.R.2020Background
- Plaintiff Puerto Rico Association of Mayors challenged Circular Letter OCE-DET-2020-02 issued by the Puerto Rico Elections Comptroller, which treats certain individual social-media pages as "official" and bans political/campaign content on such pages.
- The Circular deems an account "official" if it is public-facing and its content is provided by a "main official" (e.g., a mayor) or by persons supervised by that official, and lists broad prohibitions on campaign-related content.
- Plaintiff argued the Circular improperly reaches mayors’ personal/private social-media accounts (even when no public funds maintain them) and thus censors political speech in violation of the First Amendment.
- The district court initially granted a preliminary injunction, finding irreparable constitutional harm and no compelling government interest shown.
- After briefing and a motion for reconsideration by the Elections Comptroller, the court denied reconsideration and converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction, holding the Circular unconstitutional as applied to mayors’ private/personal social-media accounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCE-DET-2020-02 may be applied to private/personal social-media accounts of mayors | The Circular unlawfully censors political speech on personal accounts whenever content is provided by the mayor | The rule targets use of public funds and prevents electioneering; it does not bar expression on private campaign accounts | The court held the Circular unconstitutional as applied to personal/private accounts and entered a permanent injunction |
| Whether the OEC’s "official" definition is limited to pages maintained with public funds | The definition sweeps in privately maintained pages when content is provided by an official, so it is overbroad | The OEC uses multi-factor tests (identification, official use, agency treatment, use of employees/funds) to identify official pages | The court found the Circular can apply even when no public funds are used, undermining the government’s asserted objective |
| Whether the government demonstrated a compelling interest and narrow tailoring to justify content restrictions | Plaintiffs: government has no compelling interest sufficient to restrict campaign speech on private pages; not narrowly tailored | Defendant: compelling interests in protecting public funds and deterring corruption justify restrictions during the electoral veda | The court concluded the Elections Comptroller failed to show a compelling, narrowly tailored interest and that the restriction is likely to suppress lawful political speech |
| Whether permanent injunctive relief is appropriate | Plaintiffs: First Amendment injury is irreparable; no adequate legal remedy; public interest favors injunction | Defendant: enforcement is necessary to protect public resources and electoral integrity | The court found irreparable harm, no adequate remedy, public interest and balance of hardships favored plaintiffs, and granted a permanent injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (social media is a protected forum for political speech)
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (strong First Amendment protection for Internet speech)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (political speech protections and public interest in hearing diverse political speech)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (government may not suppress speech to "level the playing field")
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (robust protection for political/public-figure speech)
- Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019) (factors for determining whether a social-media account is "official")
- Davidson v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019) (similar forum analysis for local official social-media accounts)