Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan, 773 F.3d 1

Puerto Rico’s CAL allows municipalities to authorize gated urbanizations that enclose public streets, creating a hybrid public/private regime affecting speech access.
Jehovah’s Witnesses sought access to public streets within these urbanizations for door-to-door ministry, triggering First Amendment concerns with the CAL’s administration.
This litigation traces to Watchtower I and II, which required some access remedies and signaled that unmanned gates could inhibit traditional public forum speech.
The district court ordered remedial actions: manned gates where feasible, and for unmanned urbanizations, unfettered access rights and provision of access means (keys, buzzers) to plaintiffs.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirms the district court’s remedial scheme in substance, but modifies certain requirements and remands for ongoing supervision and adjustment.
The court also addressed mootness, the mandate rule, and the propriety of injunctive relief, concluding the remedy is permissible and ongoing oversight is appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are moot.	Watchtower argues ongoing relief preserves controversy.	Municipalities claim mootness since relief granted.	Not moot; relief preserves appellate review of remedy scope.
Whether the district court properly issued injunctive relief.	Remedy improperly constrains speech without explicit rights finding.	Remedial injunction balanced speech and security interests.	Proper under deferential abuse-of-discretion review; remedy narrowly tailored.
Whether the district court violated the Watchtower I mandate.	Remedy ignored mandate to consider unmanned gates with guards where necessary.	District court could craft global remedy beyond exact phrasing of mandate.	Not an abuse; mandate scope did not foreclose remedial flexibility.
Whether the remedy’s breadth and administration unduly burden municipalities.	Key-sharing and administration burden speech access excessively.	Administrative burdens are modest and enabled by CAL framework.	Remedy within court’s equitable discretion; minor administrative burdens allowed.
Whether Commonwealth defendants were necessary parties or properly dismissed.	Commonwealth participation needed for complete relief.	Commonwealth defendants dispensable; relief could be complete with municipalities.	Federal Rule 19(a) does not require Commonwealth; dismissal affirmed without prejudice.

Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Sánchez-Ramos, 647 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.P.R. 2009) (district court remedial analysis and findings on unmanned urbanizations)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Sagardía De Jesús, 634 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2011) (earlier holding on access and remedial framework)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc. v. Colombani, 712 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (rehearing and further appellate considerations)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2009) (content-neutral, narrowly tailored time/place/manner restrictions)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (burned into evaluating narrow tailoring and speech channels)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability for policy/custom under 1983)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (deliberate indifference notion referenced for 1983 relief)