Ramsey v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
764 F. Supp. 2d 728
W.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Ramsey and Brunn are pro-life advocates seeking to distribute literature on public and private Pittsburgh property.
- They challenge Pittsburgh Ordinance § 601.62, which bans distributing unsolicited handbills on public/private property to prevent litter and protect private property rights.
- City contends the ordinance regulates time, place, and manner of speech and aims to reduce litter and protect property rights.
- The court granted a TRO and later a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of § 601.62, finding it likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- Evidence at hearings showed litter largely comprised non-leaflet items; leaflets were primarily commercial and concentrated in specific areas and times.
- The court concluded the ordinance is not narrowly tailored and not justified by a substantial government interest, thus inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 601.62 unconstitutionally restrict distribution of literature? | Ramsey/Brunn contend it censors protected speech. | City argues it regulates time/place/manner to curb litter and protect private property. | Yes; § 601.62 is unconstitutional as applied. |
| Is the restriction narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest? | The restriction burden is broader than necessary given litter evidence. | Litter reduction and privacy protection justify the restriction and its breadth. | No; not narrowly tailored or supported by substantial interest. |
| Are irreparable injury and public interest supported for a preliminary injunction? | Enforcement would irreparably harm First Amendment rights; public interest favors speech. | Enforcement protects cleanliness and private property while allowing alternatives. | Yes; injunction appropriately granted given irreparable harm and strong public interest in free speech. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (time/place/manner restrictions require substantial interest, narrow tailoring, and alternative channels)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (narrow tailoring requires regulation to advance substantial government interests without overbreadth)
- Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939) (litter concerns do not justify restricting free communication of information)
- Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943) (right to distribute literature cannot be curtailed for minor nuisances)
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Co., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) (protecting private property rights does not justify restricting protected speech)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir.2008) (government bears burden to justify restrictions on First Amendment rights)