Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Sagardía De Jesús
634 F.3d 3
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Puerto Rico enacted the Controlled Access Law to allow urbanizations to control access to public residential streets within towns.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged the statute facially and as applied in federal court, with district court dismissing facial challenges but denying as applied relief.
- The regime requires residents’ associations to obtain permits, enclose areas with barriers, and manage entry with gates, guards, keys, or buzzers.
- Streets within urbanizations remain public property and are regulated as a public function, with municipality involvement in permit decisions.
- District court later entered default judgments against some defendants and granted summary judgment for others, denying relief and awarding fees, prompting appeal.
- Court proceeded to assess facial validity, as applied access restrictions, and remedial remedies on remand, while reviewing state-action and public-function questions under Monell and related doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial validity of the Controlled Access Law | Maracaibo challenge; statute unconstitutional on its face | Law serves crime control and is not facially unconstitutional | Facial challenge not sustained; statute not unconstitutional on its face |
| As-applied restrictions on access and First Amendment impact | Access regime unconstitutionally burdens protected speech | Restrictions serve substantial governmental interest with narrow tailoring | Remanded for lower court to fine-tune administration to protect access while maintaining safety |
| Fourth Amendment seizures at urbanization barriers | Barriers amount to seizures denying entry | Entrants not seized if free to leave; guards permissible | No per se seizure; reasonableness and safeguards govern; remand for further proceedings |
| Monell and municipal liability/fees on appeal | Municipal policy/custom caused injuries; liable for fees | Limited scope of relief; Monell applicability debated | Remand to address compliance and potential remedies; fees reconsidered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002) (public forums and time/place/mashion restrictions; facial vs. content-based scrutiny)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (public forums; content-neutral restrictions with intermediate scrutiny)
- Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) (public function; government-like control of access to streets)
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (time/place/manner restrictions in a public forum; narrowly tailored)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (intermediate scrutiny; content-neutral, narrowly tailored measures)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (seizure analysis; free to leave; police stops as a model for reasonableness)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (police pursuit and seizure standards; distinction between seizure and non-seizure)