Van Wagner Communications, LLC v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation
953 F. Supp. 2d 313
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Van Wagner Communications, LLC and Van Wagner Boston, LLC (outdoor advertising companies holding >80 permits) challenge MassDOT’s promulgation of new outdoor advertising regulations (700 C.M.R. § 3.07 et seq.) and enforcement by the Office of Outdoor Advertising (OOA).
- Massachusetts reorganized highway/advertising oversight via the 2009 Transportation Act and created the OOA by regulation; MassDOT adopted temporary regs in 2009 and finalized New Regulations in December 2012.
- Plaintiffs allege the New Regulations exceed MassDOT’s statutory authority, regulate signs beyond FHBA-related areas, and grant the Director unbridled discretion (specifically § 3.07(4)) constituting an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that MassDOT lacks authority, First Amendment and state constitutional violations, § 1983 relief, and APA violations for adopting substantive changes without a hearing; they also moved for a preliminary injunction.
- The Court heard motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss, then considered standing, facial-challenge doctrine, and whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Court dismissed federal claims for lack of standing to mount a facial First Amendment challenge to § 3.07(4), dismissed a duplicative declaratory-count, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims; preliminary injunction denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count II (declaratory First Amendment claim) states a federal basis for jurisdiction | Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that § 3.07(4) is an unconstitutional prior restraint | The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent jurisdictional grant | Dismissed: Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer jurisdiction; Count II dismissed |
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring a facial First Amendment challenge to § 3.07(4) under City of Lakewood | Plaintiffs rely on City of Lakewood to permit a facial challenge to licensing discretion without applying first | Defendants say plaintiffs identify no concrete injury from § 3.07(4); existing permit denials related to a notice requirement, not § 3.07(4) | Dismissed: No standing for facial challenge; City of Lakewood inapplicable here (commercial speech, no real threat of censorship or self-censorship) |
| Whether § 3.07(4) vests unbridled discretion amounting to a prior restraint on commercial speech | Plaintiffs contend the Director’s broad, content-independent factors grant unbridled discretion that chills speech | Defendants note permitting forms do not reference content, permits allow post-approval content changes, and no evidence of content-based enforcement | Rejected for now: Court finds speculative censorship risks and that prior-restraint doctrine/facial relief not warranted for commercial speech |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (authority, state constitution, APA) after dismissal of federal claims | Plaintiffs want federal court to adjudicate remaining state-law claims | Defendants implicitly prefer remand/dismissal of state-law claims | Declined: Court dismisses federal claims early and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I, IV, V |
Key Cases Cited
- Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N.Y., Inc. v. Colombani, 712 F.3d 6 (1st Cir.) (Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent grant of jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (facial challenge allowed where licensing statute vests unbridled discretion creating real threats of censorship)
- Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (commercial-speech doctrine and limits on applying traditional prior-restraint analysis)
- Camelio v. American Federation, 137 F.3d 666 (factors guiding whether a federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims)