Ronen Helmann v. Codepink Women for Peace
2:24-cv-05704
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice) allege violations under the FACE Act arising from a protest at Adas Torah Synagogue during a special "Aliyah Event" on June 23, 2024.
- CodePink and PYM posted on social media encouraging protest at the event, with CodePink using an inverted red triangle and PYM using inflammatory language related to "land theft" and "settler expansion."
- Over 200 protestors obstructed access to the synagogue, resulting in chaos and preventing plaintiffs from entering.
- Plaintiffs filed FACE Act claims against CodePink, PYM, and two PYM leaders (Ibrahim, Schirf), alleging threats and obstruction.
- On prior motions, all claims except the FACE Act claim against CodePink were dismissed without prejudice; plaintiffs amended their complaint to reassert claims and add factual allegations.
- The court considered motions to dismiss by both CodePink and PYM; the decision grants PYM's motion (with prejudice) but denies CodePink's.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PYM’s social media post was a “true threat” under the FACE Act | PYM’s post used code and language intended to incite violence and intimidate Jews, thus constituting a true threat | The post was advocacy and political speech, not an explicit or coded threat of violence; protected under the First Amendment | PYM’s post is political hyperbole, not a true threat; protected speech |
| PYM’s vicarious liability for protestors’ physical FACE Act violations | PYM should be liable for protestors’ actions due to agency or ratification via statements made after the riot | There is no pleaded agency relationship, nor evidence of PYM’s control or ratification of protestor’s actions | Plaintiffs failed to allege an agency relationship; vicarious liability rejected |
| Whether further amendment of claims against PYM would be futile | Plaintiffs argued additional context about PYM’s language could support FACE Act liability | Defendants asserted further amendment cannot cure the fundamental deficiencies | Dismissal with prejudice; no further amendment allowed |
| Whether CodePink’s post constituted a threat under the FACE Act | CodePink’s Instagram post and red triangle constituted an attempt to incite and intimidate, meeting FACE Act threshold | CodePink argued no plausible inference of intent to block access or intimidate | Claim against CodePink survives motion to dismiss; intent adequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings in federal court)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausible claim for relief standard)
- Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (defining "true threat" standard consistent with the First Amendment for FACE Act liability)
- United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113 (offensive, hyperbolic political speech not a true threat)
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (political hyperbole protected under the First Amendment)
- N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (vituperative, abusive speech during protests protected by the First Amendment)