Walter Hoye, Ii v. City of Oakland
653 F.3d 835
9th Cir.2011Background
- Hoye, a sidewalk counselor outside a City of Oakland clinic, engages women with the aim of discouraging abortion; escorts and clinic staff assist patients entering the clinic; Oakland enacted Ordinance No. 12849 restricting approach within 100 feet and eight feet of a person entering the facility; the City amended Ordinance No. 12860 after district court concerns to remove a discrimination-in-favor provision; Hoye was convicted under the Ordinance and then federal §1983 suit was filed, with the district court granting summary judgment for Oakland; the Ninth Circuit affirming in part, reverse in part, and remanding for relief to ensure enforcement is content-neutral and applied evenhandedly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Ordinance facially valid under time–place–manner scrutiny? | Hoye argues the Ordinance is not content-neutral due to its enforcement history. | Oakland contends Hill controls, showing facial validity as time–place–manner regulation. | Facially valid under Hill framework. |
| Is Oakland’s enforcement policy content-based and unconstitutional as applied? | Oakland enforces to favor anti-abortion speech, burdening Hoye’s message. | Enforcement policy is neutral as written. | Enforcement policy is content-based and unconstitutional as applied; remand for appropriate relief. |
| What remedies should follow given the enforcement problem? | Declaratory relief and injunction reversing enforcement bias. | Remedy may be limited; enforcement may continue under neutral terms. | Remand to craft relief ensuring enforcement accords with the facially valid Ordinance. |
| Can the court address as-applied challenges given future facts? | Hoye may challenge future applications where enforcement suppresses communication. | As-applied challenges depend on prospective facts. | Court leaves as-applied challenges open but declines to decide未来 facts; remand for appropriate relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (upheld a 100-foot buffer; content-neutral time–place–m manner analysis)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time–place–manner must leave open alternative channels)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (protected religious and political speech on sidewalks)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (upholding buffer zones around clinics under content-neutrality)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content-based regulations are presumptively invalid unless strict scrutiny applied)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (public concern speech and dignity considerations in context of enforcement)