Wollschlaeger v. Farmer
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107731
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Florida enacted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, § 790.338, restricting practitioners' inquiries, record-keeping, discrimination, and harassment about firearm ownership.
- The Act targets conversations in medical care, prohibiting certain questions and data retention unless relevant to care; violations trigger disciplinary action under § 456.072 and § 395.1055.
- Plaintiffs are physicians and physician groups challenging the Act as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court previously granted a preliminary injunction; this order resolves cross-motions for summary judgment on constitutional challenges.
- Key factual context includes alleged chilling effect: self-censorship in questionnaires, counseling, and questions about firearms in preventive medicine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge § 790.338 | Plaintiffs have injury-in-fact from self-censorship. | Some provisions do not affect practitioners' speech; no standing. | Plaintiffs have standing for § 790.338(1),(2),(5),(6). |
| Ripeness of facial challenge | Challenge appropriate pre-enforcement, ripe due to self-censorship. | Ripeness requires more agency action or final rules. | Challenge ripe; pre-enforcement review proper. |
| Facial First Amendment challenge | Act imposes content-based restrictions on physician speech in preventive medicine. | Act is anti-discrimination/harassment with limited speech impact. | Act's provisions are unconstitutional content-based burdens on speech. |
| Vagueness | Key terms like 'relevant to medical care' and 'unnecessarily harassing' are vague. | Terms have ordinary meanings; some precision sufficient. | Provisions (1),(2) void for vagueness; (6) also vague; severability considered. |
| Severability | Invalid provisions should be severed to preserve rest. | Severability urged to avoid invalidating entire act. | § 790.338(3),(4),(7) severable; remaining valid portions saved; other clauses too vague to salvage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (pre-enforcement standing when future conduct sought)
- Harrell v. Florida Bar, 608 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) (credible threat of enforcement; minimal probability sufficient)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) (strict scrutiny for content-based burdens even in certain contexts)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content discrimination limited; viewpoint neutrality principles)
- Alvarez v. American Civil Liberties Union, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions; rarity of permissibility)
- Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) (speech by professionals merits strong protection)
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (standard for professional-speech regulation; balancing test concerns)
- Velazquez v. United States, 531 U.S. 533 (2001) (speech-related regulatory impact on professionals)
- Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (ripeness distinctions in advisory opinions; binding policies)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (privacy and confidentiality interests in information)