Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 1

01/17/2014

1136388

40

11-2734-cv (L) The Evergreen Association, Inc. V. City of New York

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT ____________________ AugustTerm,2012 (Argued:September14,2012Decided:January17,2014) DocketNos.112735cv,112929cv ____________________

THEEVERGREENASSOCIATION,INC.,DBAEXPECTANTMOTHERCARE PREGNANCYCENTERSEMCFRONTLINEPREGNANCYCENTER,LIFE CENTEROFNEWYORK,INC.,DBAAAAPREGNANCYPROBLEMS CENTER,PREGNANCYCARECENTEROFNEWYORK,INCORPORATEDas CRISISPREGNANCYCENTEROFNEWYORK,aNEWYORK NOTFORPROFITCORPORATION,BOROPREGNANCYCOUNSELING CENTER,aNEWYORKNOTFORPROFITCORPORATION,GOOD COUNSEL,INC.,aNEWJERSEYNOTFORPROFITCORPORATION, v. CITYOFNEWYORK,amunicipalcorporation,MICHAELBLOOMBERG, MAYOROFNEWYORKCITY,inhisofficialcapacity,JONATHANMINTZ,the COMMISSIONERoftheNEWYORKCITYDEPARTMENTOFCONSUMER AFFAIRS,inhisofficialcapacity, DefendantsAppellants. ____________________ PlaintiffsAppellees,

Before:POOLER,WESLEY,andLOHIER,CircuitJudges.

1 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 2

01/17/2014

1136388

40

AppealfromtheJuly13,2011memorandumandorderoftheUnitedStates DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(WilliamH.PauleyIII,J.) grantingPlaintiffsAppelleesmotionforapreliminaryinjunctionenjoiningLocal LawNo.17,whichrequirespregnancyservicescenters,atermdefinedinthelaw, tomakedisclosuresregardingtheservicesthattheyprovide.Becausethedistrict courtfoundthatPlaintiffshaddemonstrated,withrespecttotheirFirst Amendmentclaims,both(1)alikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsand(2) irreparableharm,anditalsoconcludedthatthelawisunconstitutionallyvague, thecourtenjoinedthestatuteinitsentirety.Onappeal,weconcludethatthelaw isnotimpermissiblyvague.WealsoconcludethatPlaintiffsfailedto demonstratealikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritswithrespecttoonechallenged disclosureprovision,whichrequirespregnancyservicescenterstodiscloseif theyhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaff,butthatplaintiffshave demonstratedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritswithrespecttoother provisionschallengedbyplaintiffsthatrequireotherformsofdisclosureand impermissiblycompelspeech.Becausetheprovisionsareseverable,however, wesevertheenjoinedprovisionsfromtherestofLocalLawNo.17.Accordingly,

2 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 3

01/17/2014

1136388

40

thememorandumandorderofthedistrictcourtisAFFIRMEDinpartand VACATEDinpart,andthiscaseisREMANDEDforfurtherproceedings. JudgeWesleyconcursinpartanddissentsinpartinaseparateopinion. ____________________ MORDECAINEWMAN,AssistantCorporation Counsel(MichaelA.Cardozo,CorporationCounsel, LarryA.Sonnenshein,NicholasCiappetta,Robin Binder,ofCounsel,onthebrief),CityofNewYork,New York,NY,forDefendantsAppellants. JAMESMATTHEWHENDERSON,AmericanCenter forLaw&Justice,Washington,DC(Cecilia,N.Heil, ErikM.Zimmerman,CarlyF.Gammil,onthebrief),for PlaintiffsAppelleestheEvergreenAssociationInc.andLife CenterofNewYork,Inc. MATTHEWBOWMAN,AllianceDefenseFund, Washington,DC(M.ToddParker,Moskowitz&Book, NewYork,NY,onthebrief),forPlaintiffsAppellees PregnancyCareCenterofNewYork,BoroPregnancy CounselingCenter,andGoodCounsel,Inc. KimberlyA.Parker,ZaidA.Zaid,WilmerCutler PickeringHaleandDorrLLP,Washington,DC,foramici curiaePlannedParenthoodofNewYorkCity,NARAL ProChoiceNewYork,NARALProChoiceAmerica, CommunityHealthcareNetwork,LawStudentsfor ReproductiveJustice,NewYorkAbortionAccessFund,New YorkCityChapteroftheNationalOrganizationforWomen, NewYorkCountyChapteroftheNewYorkStateAcademyof FamilyPhysicians,NewYorkStateAssociationofLicensed
3

3 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 4

01/17/2014

1136388

40

Midwives,NationalAbortionFederation,NationalAdvocates forPregnantWomen,NationalLatinaInstitutefor ReproductiveHealth,PhysiciansforReproductiveChoiceand Health,PublicHealthAssociationofNewYork,Religious CoalitionforReproductiveChoice,ReproductiveHealth AccessProject,SistersongWomenofColorReproductive JusticeCollective,theHonorable(Congresswoman)Carolyn Maloney,insupportofDefendantsAppellants. BrianJ.Kreiswirth,Chair,CommitteeonCivilRights, TheAssociationoftheBaroftheCityofNewYork, NewYork,NY,foramicuscuriaeTheAssociationoftheBar oftheCityofNewYork,insupportofDefendants Appellants. PriscillaJ.Smith,JenniferKeighley,TheInformation SocietyProjectatYaleLawSchool,Brooklyn,NY, amicuscuriae,insupportofDefendantsAppellants. MelissaGoodman,AlexisKarteron,ArthurN. Eisenberg,NewYorkCivilLibertiesUnion,NewYork, NY,amicuscuriae,insupportofDefendantsAppellants. DennisJ.Herrera,CityAttorney,DannyChou,Chiefof Complex&SpecialLitigation,ErinBernstein,Deputy CityAttorney,SanFrancisco,CA,foramicicuriaeCity andCountyofSanFrancisco,insupportofDefendants Appellants. DeborahJ.Dewart,JusticeandFreedomFund, Swansboro,NC,amicuscuriae,insupportofPlaintiffs Appellees. MaileeR.Smith,AmericansUnitedforLife, Washington,DC,foramicicuriaePregnancyCare
4

4 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 5

01/17/2014

1136388

40

OrganizationsCareNet,HeartbeatInternational,Inc.,and NationalInstituteofFamilyandLifeAdvocates,insupportof PlaintiffsAppellees. NoelJ.Francisco,JonesDay,Washington,DC,foramicus curiaeLawProfessorsInSupportofAppellees,insupportof PlaintiffsAppellees. SamuelB.Casey,DavidB.Waxman,JubileeCampaign LawofLifeProject,Washington,DC,foramicicuriae, AmericanAssociationofProLifeObstetriciansand Gynecologists,TheCatholicMedicalAssociation,andThe ChristianMedicalandDentalAssociations,insupportof PlaintiffsAppellees. JohnP.Margand,ScarsdaleNY,foramicuscuriaeDr. MichaelJ.New,insupportofPlaintiffsAppellees. Pooler,CircuitJudge: DefendantsAppellants(collectively,theCity)appealfromtheJuly13, 2011memorandumandorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthern DistrictofNewYork(WilliamH.PauleyIII,J.)grantingPlaintiffsAppellees (Plaintiffs)motionforapreliminaryinjunctionenjoiningLocalLawNo.17of theCityofNewYork(LocalLaw17).LocalLaw17,interalia,requires pregnancyservicescenters,atermdefinedinthestatute,tomakecertain disclosuresregardingtheservicesthatthecentersprovide.SeeEvergreenAssn, Inc.v.CityofNewYork,801F.Supp.2d197,20001(S.D.N.Y.2011).Thedistrict
5

5 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 6

01/17/2014

1136388

40

courtfoundthatPlaintiffs,providersofvariouspregnancyrelatedservices, demonstrated,withrespecttotheirFirstAmendmentclaims,both(1)alikelihood ofsuccessonthemeritsand(2)irreparableharm.Seeid.at20209;seealso AllianceforOpenSocyIntl,Inc.v.U.S.AgencyforIntlDev.,651F.3d218,230(2d Cir.2011)(discussingstandardforpreliminaryinjunction),affd133S.Ct.2321 (2013).ThedistrictcourtalsoconcludedthatLocalLaw17isunconstitutionally vague.Itthereforeenjoinedthestatuteinitsentirety.Onappeal,weconclude thatthelawisnotimpermissiblyvague.WealsoconcludethatPlaintiffsfailedto demonstratealikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritswithrespecttooneofthe challengeddisclosures,whichrequirespregnancyservicescenterstodiscloseif theyhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaff,butthatPlaintiffshave demonstratedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritswithrespecttoother provisionschallengedbyPlaintiffsthatrequireotherformsofdisclosureand impermissiblycompelspeech.Becausetheprovisionsareseverable,weseverthe enjoinedprovisionsfromtherestofLocalLaw17.Accordingly,the memorandumandorderofthedistrictcourtisAFFIRMEDinpartand VACATEDinpart,andthiscaseisREMANDEDforfurtherproceedings.

6 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 7

01/17/2014

1136388

40

BACKGROUND ThiscaseasksustodecidewhethertheNewYorkCityCouncilandMayor ofNewYorkCitycanimposerequirementsonpregnancyservicescentersaimed atinformingpotentialclientsaboutthecentersandtheservicesthattheyprovide, ordonotprovide,withoutrunningafouloftheFirstAmendment.1 I.LocalLaw17 InMarch2011,theNewYorkCityCouncilpassedandMayorMichael BloombergsignedintolawLocalLaw17,whichwasscheduledtogointoeffect onJuly14,2011,andintendedtobecodifiedintheNewYorkCity AdministrativeCode(AdministrativeCode).2Thelawimposesonpregnancy servicescenterscertainconfidentialityrequirementsandmandatorydisclosures. Onlythedisclosuresareatissueinthiscase.Underthelaw,pregnancyservices centersmustdisclose WepausetonotethatFourthCircuithasrecentlyresolvedappealsona similarissue.SeeCentroTepeyacv.MontgomeryCnty.,722F.3d184(4thCir.2013) (afterrehearingenbanc,affirmingthedistrictcourtdecisionpreliminarily enjoiningonlyoneofthetwochallengeddisclosures);GreaterBalt.Ctr.for PregnancyConcerns,Inc.v.Mayor&CityCouncilofBalt.,721F.3d264(4thCir. 2013)(afterrehearingenbanc,vacatingthedistrictcourtsgrantofplaintiffs motionforsummaryjudgmentontheirFirstAmendmentchallenge). CitationstotheAdministrativeCodearetoLocalLaw17sadditionsto Chapter5ofTitle20oftheCode,listedinLocalLaw172.
7 7 of 43
2 1

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 8

01/17/2014

1136388

40

(1)whetherornottheyhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaff whoprovidesordirectlysupervisestheprovisionofallofthe servicesatsuchpregnancyservicecenter(theStatusDisclosure); (2)thattheNewYorkCityDepartmentofHealthandMental Hygieneencourageswomenwhoareorwhomaybepregnantto consultwithalicensedprovider(theGovernmentMessage);and (3)whetherornottheyprovideorprovidereferralsforabortion, emergencycontraception,orprenatalcare(theServices Disclosure). AdministrativeCode20816(a)(e).Theymustprovidetherequireddisclosures attheirentrancesandwaitingrooms,onadvertisements,andduringtelephone conversations.3Id.20816(f).Thelawimposescivilfinesonfacilitiesthat

Specifically,thestatuteprovidesthatpregnancyservicescentersmust providethedisclosures (1)inwriting,inEnglishandSpanishinasizeandstyleas determinedinaccordancewithrulespromulgatedbythe commissioneron(i)atleastonesignconspicuouslypostedinthe entranceofthepregnancyservicescenter;(ii)atleastoneadditional signpostedinanyareawhereclientswaittoreceiveservices;and (iii)inanyadvertisementpromotingtheservicesofsuchpregnancy servicescenterinclearandprominentlettertypeandinasizeand styletobedeterminedinaccordancewithrulespromulgatedbythe commissioner;and (2)orally,whetherbyinpersonortelephonecommunication,upona clientorprospectiveclientrequestforanyofthefollowingservices:
8

8 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 9

01/17/2014

1136388

40

violateitsprovisions,anditgivestheCommissionerofConsumerAffairsthe authoritytoenforcethedisclosurerequirementsbysealingforuptofivedays anyfacilitythathasthreeormoreviolationswithintwoyears.Id.20818(a)(b). LocalLaw17definesapregnancyservicescenterasafacility,...the primarypurposeofwhichistoprovideservicestowomenwhoareormaybe pregnant,thateither(1)offersobstetricultrasounds,obstetricsonogramsor prenatalcare;or(2)hastheappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacility.Id.20 815(g).Thelawprovidesanonexclusivelistoffactorsforconsiderationin determiningwhetherafacilityhastheappearanceoflicensedmedicalfacility.4

(i)abortion;(ii)emergencycontraception;or(iii)prenatalcare. AdministrativeCode20816(f).
4

LocalLaw17statesthat

[a]mongthefactorsthatshallbeconsideredindeterminingwhether afacilityhastheappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacilityarethe following:thepregnancyservicescenter(a)offerspregnancytesting and/orpregnancydiagnosis;(b)hasstafforvolunteerswhowear medicalattireoruniforms;(c)containsoneormoreexamination tables;(d)containsaprivateorsemiprivateroomorareacontaining medicalsuppliesand/ormedicalinstruments;(e)hasstaffor volunteerswhocollecthealthinsuranceinformationfromclients; and(f)islocatedonthesamepremisesasalicensedmedicalfacility

9

9 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 10

01/17/2014

1136388

40

Id.Itisprimafacieevidencethatafacilityhastheappearanceofalicensed medicalfacilityifithastwoormoreofthefactors.Id.Finally,thelawexempts fromitsprovisionsfacilitiesthatarelicensed...toprovidemedicalor pharmaceuticalservicesorhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaff.Id. II.NewYorkCityCouncilProceedings OnOctober13,2010NewYorkCityCouncilMemberJessicaS.Lappin introducedthebillthatwouldbecomeLocalLaw17,CouncilInt.No.3712010 (Int.No.371),inordertoregulatethepracticesofcrisispregnancycenters (CPCs),organizationsthatprovidenonmedicalpregnancyservicesandare opposedtoabortion.TheCouncilsCommitteeonWomensIssueshelda hearingonthebillonNovember16,2010.Atthebeginningofthehearing, CouncilMemberJulissaFerreras,aschairoftheCommittee,testifiedthatthe proposeddisclosureswererequiredbecause[i]fsuchdisclosuresarenotmade, womenseekingreproductivehealthcaremaybeconfusedand/ormisle[]dby unclearadvertisingormayunnecessarilydelayprenatalcareorabortion. CouncilMemberLappinstatedthatInt.No.371wasabouttruthinadvertising

orproviderorsharesfacilityspacewithalicensedmedicalprovider. AdministrativeCode20815(g).
10

10 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 11

01/17/2014

1136388

40

andwomenshealth.TheCommitteethenconsideredtestimonyandwritten submissionsbothinfavorofandagainstthebill. TheCommitteeconsideredawidearrayoftestimonyinfavorofInt.No. 371sproposeddisclosurerequirements.Severalpeopletestifiedastomisleading practicesbyCPCs.JoanMalin,PresidentandCEOofPlannedParenthood, testifiedthatCPCsareoftenintentionallylocatedinproximitytoPlanned Parenthoodfacilitiesandthattheyoftenusemisleadingnamesandsignage. MarianaBanzil,theExecutiveDirectoratDr.EmilyWomensHealthCenter, testifiedaboutaparticularCPCthatwouldparkabusinfrontofherclinic,from whichtheCPCscounselors,oftenwearingscrubs,wouldofferultrasounds, harassCenterpatients,tellpatientsthattheCenterwasclosed,oridentify themselvesasCenterworkers. Dr.SusanBlank,anAssistantCommissionerattheNewYorkCity DepartmentofHealthandMentalHygiene,testifiedthatdelayinprenatalcare decreasesthelikelihoodofahealthypregnancy,delivery,healthynewbornand mother.Thatswhystartingprenatalcareinthefirsttrimesterisstandardcarein obstetricpractice.Shealsonotedthedangersofdelaysinaccesstoabortion servicesandemergencycontraception.
11

11 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 12

01/17/2014

1136388

40

OtherwitnessestestifiedtopatientexperienceswithbothmisleadingCPC practicesanddelaysinaccesstoservices.BalinAnderson,asocialworkerat PlannedParenthood,describedseveralofherpatientswhomistookaCPCfora PlannedParenthoodsite;onepatientwasinterceptedbyaCPCmemberwho posedasaPlannedParenthoodstaffmember.ReverendMatthewWestfox,an ordainedministerattheUnitedChurchofChrist,describedtheexperienceof severalparishioners.Onewomanscheduledanappointmentforanabortionat anorganizationthat,asshelearneduponarrival,wasaCPC.Another worksatagrocerystoreandhadtonegotiatewithbothherbossand oneofhercoworkerstogetthedayoffsoshecouldgototheclinic andhavetheabortionthatsheandherhusbandhadtogether decidedwasbest. Whensherealizedshehadgonetoaplacethatwasntgoingto providetheservicesheneeded,thatshehadwastedherdayoff,lost theincomeshecouldhavehadthatdayworking,andthatitwould bewithoutpurpose,andthatitmightbethreeweeksbeforeshe couldgetanotherdayofftotrythisagain,shewasoutraged. Dr.AnneR.Davisdescribedhowoneofherpatients,Susan,wenttoaCPC duringhersecondtrimesterinordertogetanabortion.Despitetherebeingno medicalneed,theCPCtoldthepatientthatshewouldneedrepeatedultrasounds beforetheprocedurecouldbedone:

12

12 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 13

01/17/2014

1136388

40

ThestafftoldSusanthatsheneededanultrasoundbeforethe procedure.Thenanotherultrasound.Theyattributedthemultiple teststouncertaintyabouthowadvancedherpregnancywas. Becauseofthesedelays,Susanspregnancyprogressedintothethird trimester. Susanwas32weekspregnantandstillseekinganabortionwhenshe consultedmeatourhospitalbasedclinic.Ihadtotellheritwasno longerpossible:shewasbeyondthelegallimitforabortioninNew York....[W]henIexaminedSusan,Ifoundhercase straightforwardonesimpleabdominalultrasoundwouldhave datedherpregnancyeasily.TheCPChadnomedicalreasonsfor keepingherwaiting. JenniferCarnig,DirectorofCommunicationsfortheNewYorkCivilLiberties Union,discussedherpersonalexperiencemistakenlyenteringaCPC:shefilled outmedicalhistorypaperwork,gavecontactinformation,andreceiveda pregnancytestandsonogramfromawomanwearingmedicalscrubs.Kristan Toth,anabortioncounselor,offeredwrittentestimonythatsome[ofherclients] aresetupforprocedureswithappointments,onlytohavetheseappointments canceledandrescheduledtimeandtimeagain,inanattempttoprolongthe processpastapointwhenawomancanhaveaccesstoarealandsafe abortion....ReverendDr.EarlKooperkampofferedwrittentestimonythathe hadcounseledwomenwhohadsoughtadvicefromCPCsthatwereunableto discusswiththemthefullrangeofpregnancyoptions.KellinConlin,President
13

13 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 14

01/17/2014

1136388

40

ofNARALProChoiceNewYork,testifiedandofferedintotherecordacopyofa NARALReport.Thereport,entitledSheSaidAbortionCausesBreastCancer: AReportontheLies,ManipulationsandPrivacyViolationsatCrisisPregnancy Centers,summarizesthefindingsofNARALsinvestigationintoCPCsthrough websiteanalysis,phonesurvey,inpersonvisits,andreviewofliterature distributedbyCPCs.ThereportdescribeshowmanyCPCsusemedical soundingnames,arelocatednearmedicalclinicsandhospitals,provide pregnancytestingandultrasounds,andrequirepatientstofilloutdetailedforms solicitingpersonalinformation,allofwhichcreatestheimpressionthattheCPCs aremedicalfacilities.SeveralcounselorsNARALspokewithgaveincorrect informationastohowlongawomancanlegallywaitbeforegettinganabortion. Finally,theCommitteealsoheardtestimonyastohowmanyCPCs solicitedconfidentialmedicalhistoryinformationfromclients. TestimonywasalsoofferedagainstInt.No.317.ChrisSlattery,the founderofExpectantMotherCare(EMC),anantiabortionpregnancyclinic, testifiedtotheworkdonebyEMCincounselingandprovidingcaretowomen. Heconcededthat,attimes,womenconfusedEMCwithaPlannedParenthood sitelocatedinthesamebuilding,butnotedthatEMCdidnotmislead
14

14 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 15

01/17/2014

1136388

40

prospectiveclientsaboutthefactthatEMCwasadifferentorganization. KathleenDooleyPolcha,directoroftheCatholicGuardianSocietyandHome BureausMaternityServicesProgram,testifiedthatherorganizationinformed prospectiveclientsthattheydidnotprovidemedicalcareoraccesstoabortion, butbelievedthatcentersshouldnotberequiredtopostdisclosuresigns.Persons affiliatedwithotherCPCstestifiedabouttheworktheydidcounselingand helpingwomen;severalnotedthattheirorganizationsclearlyinformedwomen thattheydonotprovideabortionormedicalcare.Dr.AnneMielnik,aphysician, testifiedthatCPCsplayavitalroleinhelpingwomen.Shenotedthatshe consultedwithseveralcenterstoanswermedicalquestionsandprovideurgent medicalcare.OtherstestifiedtoFirstAmendmentconcerns.Finally,many peopletestifiedinfavoroftheservicesprovidedbymanyCPCs,offeredconcerns aboutthepotentialhealthrisksofabortion,andwereworriedthatthebillwould promoteaproabortionagenda. OnMarch1,2011,theCommitteeonWomensIssuesapprovedInt.No. 371,andonMarch2,2011,thefullNewYorkCityCouncilpassedthebill.On March16,2011,MayorMichaelBloombergsignedthebillintolaw.

15

15 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 16

01/17/2014

1136388

40

LocalLaw17includesastatementof[l]egislativefindingsandintent. LocalLaw171.TheNewYorkCityCouncilfoundthatsomepregnancy servicescentersengagedindeceptivepracticesabouttheirservices;thatthese deceptivepracticescouldimpedeordelayconsumeraccesstoreproductive healthservicesandwronglyleadconsumerstobelievetheyhadreceivedcare fromalicensedmedicalprovider;andthatexistinglawsdidnotadequately protectconsumersfromthesedeceptivepractices.Id.Itfurtherfoundthat [d]elayinaccessingabortionoremergencycontraceptioncreatesincreased healthrisksandfinancialburdens,andmayeliminateawomens[sic]abilityto obtain[reproductivehealthservices],severelylimitingherreproductivehealth options.Id.TheCouncilstatedthatitenactedthelawtoensurethat consumersinNewYorkCityhaveaccesstocomprehensiveinformationabout andtimelyaccesstoalltypesofreproductivehealthservicesincluding,butnot limitedto,accuratepregnancydiagnosis,prenatalcare,emergencycontraception andabortion.Id. III.ThePlaintiffs PlaintiffsTheEvergreenAssociation,Inc.(Evergreen),LifeCenterof NewYork(LifeCenter),PregnancyCareCenterofNewYork(PCCNY),Boro
16

16 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 17

01/17/2014

1136388

40

PregnancyCounselingCenter(Boro),andGoodCounsel,Inc.(Good Counsel)arepregnancyservicescentersunderLocalLaw17.Evergreenand LifeCenterprovideavarietyofpregnancyrelatedservicesincludingpregnancy testing,pregnancycounseling,ultrasounds,andsonograms.PCCNY,Boro,and GoodCounselalsoprovidepregnancyservices,butdonotprovideultrasounds, sonograms,orphysicalexaminations.Plaintiffs,withtheexceptionofGood Counsel,providetheirservicesfreeofcharge.GoodCounsel,whichoffers servicestopregnantwomenhousedatitsresidentialfacilities,asksresidentsto passontheirrentsubsidy(ifonpublicassistance)or10%oftheirincome(if employed).NoneofthePlaintiffsofferorprovidereferralsforabortionor emergencycontraception. PlaintiffsmovedforapreliminaryinjunctiontopreventLocalLaw17from takingeffect.Theyarguedthatthelawinfringedontheirfreespeechrights undertheFirstAmendment.InaJune13,2011memorandumandorder,the districtcourtgrantedthemotion.EvergreenAssn,Inc.,801F.Supp.2dat197. DefendantstheCityofNewYork;MichaelBloomberg,MayorofNewYorkCity, inhisofficialcapacity;andJonathanMintz,theCommissioneroftheNewYork CityDepartmentofConsumerAffairs,inhisofficialcapacity,nowappeal.
17

17 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 18

01/17/2014

1136388

40

DISCUSSION LocalLaw17requirespregnancyservicescenterstodisclose(1)whetheror nottheyhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaff(theStatusDisclosure);(2) thattheNewYorkCityDepartmentofHealthandMentalHygieneencourages womenwhoareorwhomaybepregnanttoconsultwithalicensedprovider (theGovernmentMessage);and(3)whetherornottheyprovideorprovide referralsforabortion,emergencycontraception,orprenatalcare(theServices Disclosure).AdministrativeCode20816(a)(e).Thedistrictcourtfoundthat thesedisclosurerequirementsviolatedPlaintiffsFirstAmendmentrights, grantedPlaintiffsmotionforapreliminaryinjunction,andenjoinedthelawinits entirety. Wereviewthegrantofapreliminaryinjunctionforabuseofdiscretion. Alliance,651F.3dat230.Adistrictcourtabusesitsdiscretionwhen(1)its decisionrestsonanerroroflaworaclearlyerroneousfactualfinding,or(2)its decisionthoughnotnecessarilytheproductofalegalerrororaclearly erroneousfactualfindingcannotbelocatedwithintherangeofpermissible decisions.Id.(internalquotationmarksandellipsisomitted).

18

18 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 19

01/17/2014

1136388

40

Ourreviewofthedistrictcourtsdecisionrequiresustoconsiderthe appropriatelevelofscrutinytoapplytothelaw,whetherPlaintiffshavemet theirburdenforapreliminaryinjunction,andwhetherwemustenjointhestatute initsentiretyduetovagueness.Asdiscussedbelow,wefindthatLocalLaw17 isnotimpermissiblyvague,andthussevertheenjoinedprovisionsfromtherest ofthelaw.WealsofindthatPlaintiffsfailedtodemonstratealikelihoodof successonthemeritswithrespecttooneofthechallengeddisclosures. I.SeveranceandVagueness LocalLaw17imposesconfidentialityrequirementsthatPlaintiffshavenot challenged,alongwithseveraldisclosurerequirementsanddefinitional provisionsthatPlaintiffshavechallengedbutthatmightbeseverableintheevent theyareunconstitutional.Wemust,therefore,decidewhethertoseverany offendingprovisionsorenjointhelawinitsentirety.Weholdthatanyoffending provisionsofthestatutethatinfringeonPlaintiffsFirstAmendmentrights shouldbeseveredfromtherestofthestatute. Severanceofalocallawisaquestionofstatelaw.SeeGaryD.Peake ExcavatingInc.v.TownBd.ofHancock,93F.3d68,72(2dCir.1996).UnderNew YorkLaw,acourtshouldrefrainfrominvalidatinganentirestatutewhenonly
19

19 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 20

01/17/2014

1136388

40

portionsofitareobjectionable.Id.(internalquotationsomitted).Thequestion isineverycasewhetherthelegislature,ifpartialinvalidityhadbeenforeseen, wouldhavewishedthestatutetobeenforcedwiththeinvalidpartexscinded,or rejectedaltogether.Id.at73.Here,LocalLaw17providesthat [i]fanysection,subsection,sentence,clause,phraseorotherportion ofthislocallawis,foranyreason,declaredunconstitutionalor invalid,inwholeorinpart,byanycourtofcompetentjurisdiction, suchportionshallbedeemedseverable,andsuch unconstitutionalityorinvalidityshallnotaffectthevalidityofthe remainingportionsofthislocallaw,whichremainingportionsshall continueinfullforceandeffect. LocalLaw173.Althoughthepresenceofaseverabilityclauseisnot dispositive,thepreferenceforseveranceisparticularlystrongwhenthelaw containsaseverabilityclause.GaryD.Peake,93F.3dat72(internalquotation marksandbracketsomitted).Here,weconsidertheseverabilityclausealong withtheCityCouncilsinterestinprovidingconsumeraccesstoinformationand thepreventionofdeception,seeLocalLaw171,aswellasthestatutes confidentialityprovisions,enactedtoprotectconsumerspersonalandhealth information,whichfunctionindependentofthedisclosurerequirements,see AdministrativeCode20817.WethinkitclearthattheCityCouncilwould wishforseverance.
20

20 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 21

01/17/2014

1136388

40

ThisdoesnotendouranalysisbecausePlaintiffsargue,andthedistrict courtheld,thatLocalLaw17sdefinitionofthetermpregnancyservices centersisimpermissiblyvagueandthat,forthisreason,theentirestatute shouldbeenjoined.Astatutecanbeimpermissiblyvagueforeitheroftwo independentreasons.First,ifitfailstoprovidepeopleofordinaryintelligencea reasonableopportunitytounderstandwhatconductitprohibits.Second,ifit authorizesorevenencouragesarbitraryanddiscriminatoryenforcement.Hillv. Colorado,530U.S.703,732(2000). LocalLaw17hastwodefinitionsforpregnancyservicescenters.The firstdefinitionincludesfacilitiesthat,likePlaintiffsEvergreenandLifeCenter, provideultrasounds,sonograms,orprenatalcare.AdministrativeCode20 815(g).5Theseconddefinitionincludesotherfacilities,that,likePlaintiffs PCCNY,Boro,andGoodCounsel,donotprovidesuchservices,butthathave theappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacility.Id.Withregardtothissecond definition,thelawprovidesthat

Thepartiesdonotseriouslyarguethatthisfirstdefinitionisvagueas appliedtoentitieslikeEvergreenandLifeCenter,whichindisputablyprovideat leastsomeoftheservicesspecifiedinthestatute.Forthisreason,evenifthe dissentwererightthattheseconddefinitionisimpermissiblyvagueasappliedto thePCCNYPlaintiffs,seeDissentat[3n.1],thiswouldnotnecessarilyrequire strikingtheentirestatuteasopposedtomerelythatseconddefinition.

21 21 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 22

01/17/2014

1136388

40

[a]mongthefactorsthatshallbeconsideredindeterminingwhethera facilityhastheappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacilityarethe following:thepregnancyservicescenter(a)offerspregnancytesting and/orpregnancydiagnosis;(b)hasstafforvolunteerswhowear medicalattireoruniforms;(c)containsoneormoreexamination tables;(d)containsaprivateorsemiprivateroomorareacontaining medicalsuppliesand/ormedicalinstruments;(e)hasstaffor volunteerswhocollecthealthinsuranceinformationfromclients; and(f)islocatedonthesamepremisesasalicensedmedicalfacility orproviderorsharesfacilityspacewithalicensedmedicalprovider. Id.(emphasisadded).Thelawaddsthatitisprimafacieevidencethatafacility hastheappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacilityifithastwoormoreofthe factors.Id.Plaintiffsarguethat,becausethislistoffactorsisnonexclusive, LocalLaw17bothfailstogivefairnoticetoregulatedfacilitiesandauthorizes discriminatoryenforcement.Thedistrictcourt,acceptingthissecondargument, foundthestatutetobevagueandenjoineditinitsentirety. Wedisagree.ItissignificantthatthedeterminationofLocalLaw17s applicabilityisnotsolelybyreferencetotheaforementionedfactors.Instead,the determinationisboundbytherequirementofanappearanceofalicensed medicalfacility.Thelistedfactors,whilenonexclusive,areobjectivecriteria thatcabinthedefinitionofappearance.SeeUnitedStatesv.Schneiderman,968 F.2d1564,1568(2dCir.1992)(Theseguidelinestendtominimizethelikelihood

22

22 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 23

01/17/2014

1136388

40

ofarbitraryenforcementbyprovidingobjectivecriteriaagainstwhichtomeasure possibleviolationsofthelaw.),abrogatedonothergroundsbyPostersNThings, Ltd.v.UnitedStates,511U.S.513,51819,524n.13(1994).Inthisway,thestatute differsfromthenonexclusivefactorsatissueinAmidonv.StudentAssociationof StateUniversityofNewYork,whichwerethesolecriteriaguidingapplicationof thereferendaatissueandwhichincludedindividualfactorsthatwere themselvesvagueandpliable.508F.3d94,104(2dCir.2007).Therequirement ofanappearanceofalicensedmedicalfacility,combinedwiththelisted factors,isenoughtogivenoticetoregulatedfacilitiesandcurtailarbitrary enforcement. Theuseofnonexclusivefactorsisadmittedlyimprecise,butthe prohibitionagainstexcessivevaguenessdoesnotinvalidateeverystatutewhich areviewingcourtbelievescouldhavebeendraftedwithgreaterprecision.Rose v.Locke,423U.S.48,49(1975).Manystatuteswillhavesomeinherent vagueness,forinmostEnglishwordsandphrasestherelurkuncertainties.Id. at4950(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted). BecausetheNewYorkCityCouncilwouldhavewishedthestatutetobe enforcedwiththeinvalidpartexscinded,GaryD.Peake,93F.3dat73,and
23

23 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 24

01/17/2014

1136388

40

becausewefindthatLocalLaw17isnotunconstitutionallyvague,weenjoin onlytheportionsofthelawthatinfringeonPlaintiffsFirstAmendmentrights. II.AppropriateLevelofScrutiny Thepartiesdisagreeabouttheappropriatelevelofscrutinytoapplyto LocalLaw17.Bothagreethatthelawcompelsspeech.Plaintiffsurgeusto applystrictscrutiny.Mandatingspeechthataspeakerwouldnototherwise makenecessarilyaltersthecontentofthespeech.Rileyv.NatlFed.oftheBlindof N.C.,Inc.,487U.S.781,795(1988).Wethereforeconsider[lawsmandating speech]tobecontentbasedregulationssubjecttostrictorexactingscrutiny. Id.;seealsoTurnerBroad.Sys.v.FCC,512U.S.622,642(1994)(Lawsthatcompel speakerstoutterordistributespeechbearingaparticularmessagearesubjectto thesamerigorousscrutinyaslawsthatsuppress,disadvantage,orimpose differentialburdensuponspeechbecauseofitscontent.). Thereareexceptionstothisgeneralrule,andtheCityanditsamiciput forthanumberofargumentsastowhyweshouldsubjectLocalLaw17s compelleddisclosurestoalesserlevelofscrutiny.First,theypointoutthata lesserdegreeofscrutinyappliestocompelleddisclosuresinthecontextof campaignfinanceregulation,CitizensUnitedv.FEC,558U.S.310,36667(2010),
24

24 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 25

01/17/2014

1136388

40

theregulationoflicensedphysicians,PlannedParenthoodofSe.Pa.v.Casey,505 U.S.833,884(1992),andcommercialspeech,Zaudererv.OfficeofDisciplinary CounseloftheSupremeCourtofOhio,471U.S.626,65051(1985).Fromthis,they arguethatthedistinctionbetweenprohibitionsonspeechanddisclosure requirementsshouldbepertinenttoouranalysis,andthatweshouldreview LocalLaw17underintermediateexactingscrutiny.Doev.Reed,561U.S.186,130 S.Ct.2811,2818(2010).Second,theyarguethatthestatesauthoritytocompel physicianstoprovideinformationaboutabortion,seeGonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S. 124,157(2007);Casey,505U.S.at884,alsoappliestotheregulationofnon licensedindividualswhoprovidepregnancyrelatedservices.Finally,theCity arguesthatLocalLaw17regulatescommercialspeech,subjecttoeither intermediatescrutiny,seeCent.HudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.Pub.Serv.Comm.of N.Y.,447U.S.560,56366(1980),or,ifthelawcompelsdisclosureofpurely factualanduncontroversialinformation,rationalbasisreview,Zauderer,471 U.S.at651. Thedistrictcourtconsideredandrejectedallofthesearguments.Wefind, however,thatweneednotdecidetheissue,becauseourconclusionsarethesame undereitherintermediatescrutiny(whichlookstowhetheralawisnomore
25

25 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 26

01/17/2014

1136388

40

extensivethannecessarytoserveasubstantialgovernmentalinterest)orstrict scrutiny(whichlookstowhetheralawisnarrowlydrawntoserveacompelling governmentalinterest).6Asdiscussedbelow,undereitherlevelofreview,the GovernmentMessageandServicesDisclosurefailreviewwhiletheStatus Disclosuresurvives. III.PreliminaryInjunction Apartyseekingtostaygovernmentactiontakeninthepublicinterest pursuanttoastatutoryorregulatoryscheme...mustestablish(1)alikelihoodof successonthemerits,and(2)irreparableharmintheabsenceofaninjunction. Alliance,651F.3dat230(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted).In consideringthelikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,weevaluatePlaintiffsFirst Amendmentclaims,consideringboththeimportanceoftheCitysinterestand

AssumingarguendothatLocalLaw17srequireddisclosuresregulate commercialspeech,wedonotbelievethatthelawregulatespurelyfactualand uncontroversialinformation,suchthatrationalbasisreviewwouldapply. Zauderer,471U.S.at651.NeithertheGovernmentMessagenortheServices Disclosurerequiredisclosureofuncontroversialinformation.TheGovernment MessagerequirespregnancyservicescenterstostatetheCityspreferred message,whiletheServicesDisclosurerequirescenterstomentioncontroversial servicesthatsomepregnancyservicescenters,suchasPlaintiffsinthiscase, oppose.WithrespecttotheStatusDisclosure,thelevelofreviewdoesnot matter,because,asdiscussedbelow,itsurvivesunderevenstrictscrutiny.
26

26 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 27

01/17/2014

1136388

40

theburdenimposedbytheregulationinquestion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Playboy EntmtGrp.,Inc.,529U.S.803,813(2000);Cent.Hudson,447U.S.at566. Turningtothecaseathand,weholdthatthedistrictcourtcorrectly determinedthatPlaintiffshaveestablishedirreparableharm.Whereaplaintiff allegesinjuryfromaruleorregulationthatdirectlylimitsspeech,theirreparable natureoftheharmmaybepresumed.BronxHouseholdofFaithv.Bd.ofEduc.of CityofN.Y.,331F.3d342,349(2dCir.2003).Mandatingspeechthataspeaker wouldnototherwisemakenecessarilyaltersthecontentofthespeech.Riley, 487U.S.at795.LocalLaw17,asitcompelsPlaintiffstomakedisclosuresorface penalties,isclearlyadirectlimitationonspeechthatcreatesapresumptionof irreparableharm. Withrespecttothemerits,weholdthattheCitysinterestinpassingLocal Law17iscompelling.TheCityhasstatedthatitenactedthestatutetoinform consumersabouttheservicestheywillreceivefrompregnancyservicescentersin ordertopreventdelaysinaccesstoreproductivehealthservices.SeeLocalLaw 171.TheCityconsideredawidevarietyoftestimonyrelatedtotheseinterests, includingtestimonyandreportsfrommedicalprofessionals,socialworkers, clergy,andreproductivehealthworkersaboutmisleadingpractices,patient
27

27 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 28

01/17/2014

1136388

40

experiences,andthedangersofdelayinaccesstoreproductivecare.[T]heState hasastronginterestinprotectingawomansfreedomtoseeklawfulmedicalor counselingservicesinconnectionwithherpregnancy.Madsenv.Womens HealthCtr.,Inc.,512U.S.753,767(1994);seealsoAm.LifeLeague,Inc.v.Reno,47 F.3d642,656(4thCir.1995)([P]rotect[ing]publichealthbypromoting unobstructedaccesstoreproductivehealthfacilitiesservessufficiently compellinggovernmentalinterests.). Atissueinthiscaseiswhethertherequireddisclosuresaresufficiently tailoredtotheCitysinterests.Weevaluatetherequireddisclosuresindividually, beginningwiththeStatusDisclosure. A.StatusDisclosure TheStatusDisclosurerequirespregnancyservicescenterstodisclose whetherornottheyhavealicensedmedicalprovideronstaffwhoprovidesor directlysupervisestheprovisionofalloftheservicesatsuchpregnancyservices center.AdministrativeCode20816(b).Wedisagreewiththedistrictcourt andholdthattheStatusDisclosuresurvivesreviewunderstrictscrutiny. Understrictscrutiny,thechallengedregulationmustbenarrowlytailored topromoteacompellingGovernmentinterest.PlayboyEntmt,529U.S.at813.
28

28 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 29

01/17/2014

1136388

40

Thestatutemustusetheleastrestrictivemeanstoachieveitsends.Id.Whilethis isaheavyburden,itisnottruethatstrictscrutinyisstrictintheory,butfatalin fact.AdarandConstructors,Inc.v.Pena,515U.S.200,237(1995)(internal quotationmarksomitted).InFirstAmendmentchallenges,regulationshave survivedstrictscrutiny.InBursonv.Freeman,forexample,theSupremeCourt employedstrictscrutinyinevaluatingastatutecarvingoutacampaignfree zoneoutsidepollingplaces.504U.S.191,19394(1992).Balancingtheminor limitationprescribedbythestatuteagainstthehistoricalconcernswithvoter intimidationandelectionfraud,theCourtheldthatthestatutewasnarrowly tailoredtothestatesinterestinprotectingtherightofcitizenstovoteand conductingreliableelections.Id.at198210.InRiley,theSupremeCourt suggestedthatarequirementthatsolicitorsdisclosetheirprofessionalstatus wouldbenarrowlytailoredtothestatesinterestininformingdonorshowthe moneytheycontributeisspentinordertodispeltheallegedmisperceptionthat themoneytheygivetoprofessionalfundraisersgoesingreaterthanactual proportiontobenefitcharity.487U.S.at798;seealsoid.at799n.11.TheFirst Amendmenttestisconcernedwithabalancingofinterests.Here,strikingdown theStatusDisclosurewoulddeprivetheCityofitsabilitytoprotectthehealthof itscitizensandcombatconsumerdeceptionineventhemostminimalway.
29 29 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 30

01/17/2014

1136388

40

TheStatusDisclosureistheleastrestrictivemeanstoensurethatawoman isawareofwhetherornotaparticularpregnancyservicescenterhasalicensed medicalprovideratthetimethatshefirstinteractswithit.Suchalawisrequired toensurethatwomenhavepromptaccesstothetypeofcaretheyseek.Plaintiffs havesuggested,andthedistrictcourtheld,thatalternativemeansexist:theCity couldsponsoradvertisementsorpostsignsoutsideofpregnancyservices centers;itcouldprosecutefraud,falseadvertising,andtheunauthorizedpractice ofmedicineundercurrentlaw;anditcouldimposelicensingrequirementson ultrasoundprofessionals.7SeeEvergreen,801F.Supp.2dat20809.Butthese alternatemeanswillnotaccomplishtheCityscompellinginterest.City sponsoredadvertisementsandsignscannotalertconsumersastowhethera particularpregnancyservicescenteremploysalicensedmedicalprovider, because,amongotherthings,thisisdiscretefactualinformationknownonlyto theparticularcenter.Enforcementoffraudorotherlawsoccursonlyafterthe fact,atwhichpointthereproductiveservicesoughtmaybeineffectualor

Asthedistrictcourtnoted,NewYorkstatedoesnotimposelicensing requirementsonultrasoundtechnicians.Evergreen,801F.Supp.2dat209.The districtcourtsuggestedthattheCitycouldimposelicensingrequirementsor lobbythestatetodoso.Id.

30

30 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 31

01/17/2014

1136388

40

unobtainable.Finally,thelicensingandregulationofultrasoundprofessionals willnotalertconsumerstothestatusoftheplaceinwhichsuchprofessionalsare employedunlessthelicensingandregulationschemeitselfrequiresdisclosures comparabletoLocalLaw17sStatusandServiceDisclosures.Moreover,notall regulatedcentersprovideultrasounds,soalicensingandregulationeffortaimed onlyatthosecentersthatdoprovideultrasoundswouldnothelppatientsseeking medicalassistanceatothercenters.TheStatusDisclosureistheleastrestrictive meansofprovidingreadyinformationaboutpregnancyservicescentersto consumers. Similarly,LocalLaw17isnotoverlybroad.Inordertonarrowlytailora lawtoaddressaproblem,thegovernmentmustcurtailspeechonlytothedegree necessarytomeettheparticularproblemathand,andthegovernmentmust avoidinfringingonspeechthatdoesnotposethedangerthathasprompted regulation.GreenPartyofConn.v.Garfield,616F.3d189,209(2dCir.2010).The districtcourtheldthatthestatutewasoverinclusivebecausenotallpregnancy servicescentersengageindeception.Weacknowledgethatthisisso.However, whiletheCityconsidereddeceptionbycertainCPCsinitshearing,theproblemit soughttosolveisadifferentone.LocalLaw17seekstopreventwomanfrom
31

31 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 32

01/17/2014

1136388

40

mistakenlyconcludingthatpregnancyservicescenters,whichlooklikemedical facilities,aremedicalfacilities,whetherornotthecentersengageindeception. Thelawthusappliestofacilitiesthathavetheappearanceofalicensedmedical facility. Weconcludethattherequirementthatpregnancyservicescentersdisclose whetherornottheyemploymedicalprofessionalsisnarrowlytailored.Our holdingfindssupportintheSupremeCourtsdecisioninRiley,where,as mentionedabove,theCourtsuggestedthatarequirementthatsolicitorsdisclose theirprofessionalstatusisanarrowlytailoredrequirement[that]would withstandFirstAmendmentscrutiny.487U.S.at799n.11.8TheSupremeCourt hassubsequentlyfavorablycitedtoRiley.See,e.g.,Illinoisexrel.Madiganv. TelemarketingAssocs.,Inc.,538U.S.600,623(2003);IntlSocyforKrishna Consciousness,Inc.v.Lee,505U.S.672,70607(1992)(Kennedy,J.,concurring). OtherCircuitshavereliedonRileytoupholddisclosurelawsrequiringsolicitors

WenotethattheplaintiffsinRileydidnotchallengethestatusdisclosure requirement,makingtheSupremeCourtsdiscussionoftherequirementdicta. 487U.S.at799.Additionally,theCourtwasdividedoverthisissue.Seeid.at803 (Scalia,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment)(Idonotseehow requiringtheprofessionalsolicitortodisclosehisprofessionalstatusisnarrowly tailoredtopreventfraud.).

32

32 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 33

01/17/2014

1136388

40

todisclosetheirprofessionalstatusorthename,identityandtaxexemptstatusof theirorganization.See,e.g.,NatlFednoftheBlindv.FTC,420F.3d331,343(4th Cir.2005);DaytonAreaVisuallyImpairedPersons,Inc.v.Fisher,70F.3d1474,1485 (6thCir.1995);ChurchofScientologyFlagServ.Org.,Inc.v.CityofClearwater,2F.3d 1514,1539(11thCir.1993);TelcoCommcns,Inc.v.Carbaugh,885F.2d1225,1232 (4thCir.1989).Weacknowledgethatthecaseathandisdifferent,becausethe requireddisclosuredoesnotariseinthecontextofcharitablesolicitation. However,inbothcontextsthelawsinquestionsupportthestateinterestin informingconsumersandcombatingmisinformation.Arequirementthat pregnancyservicescentersunambiguouslydisclosetheprofessionalstatusof theiremployees,Riley,487U.S.at799n.11,isnarrowlytailoredtotheCitys interests. Finally,wenotethattheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof MarylandandtheFourthCircuitrecentlyreachedasimilarconclusioninCentro Tepeyacv.MontgomeryCounty,779F.Supp.2d456(D.Md.2011),revdinpart,683 F.3d591(4thCir.2012),revdenbanc,722F.3d184(4thCir.2013).Atissuein CentroTepeyacwasastatuterequiringcertainnonmedicalpregnancycentersto postasignstating:(1)theCenterdoesnothavealicensedmedicalprofessional
33

33 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 34

01/17/2014

1136388

40

onstaff;and(2)theMontgomeryCountyHealthOfficerencourageswomen whoareormaybepregnanttoconsultwithalicensedhealthcareprovider.779 F.Supp.2dat459(internalquotationmarksomitted).Theplaintiffschallenged theordinanceonFirstAmendmentgroundsandsoughtapreliminaryinjunction. Evaluatingunderstrictscrutiny,thedistrictcourtrefusedtoenjointhefirst requireddisclosure,notingthat therecordisatleastcolorableatthisstagetosuggestthatthe disclaimerisnarrowlytailoredtomeettheinterest:onlyrequiring those[pregnancyclinics]topostanoticethatalicensedmedical professionalisnotonstaff.Itdoesnotrequireanyotherspecific messageandinneutrallanguagestatesthetruth. Id.at471.Afterrehearingtheappealenbanc,theFourthCircuitaffirmedthe districtcourt.722F.3dat18892.AsJudgeWilkinsonstatedinhisconcurrence inCentroTepeyac: [I]nexercisingitsbroadpolicepowertoregulateforthehealthand safetyofitscitizens,thestatemustalsoenjoysomeleewaytorequire thedisclosureofthemodicumofaccurateinformationthat individualsneedinordertomakeespeciallyimportantmedical... decisions....[TheStatusDisclosure]reliesonthecommonsense notionthatpregnantwomenshouldatleastbeawareofthe qualificationsofthosewhowishtocounselthemregardingwhatis, amongotherthings,amedicalcondition. Id.at193.WesimilarlyconcludethattheneutralmessagerequiredbytheStatus Disclosuresurvivesstrictscrutiny.
34 34 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 35

01/17/2014

1136388

40

B.ServicesDisclosure TheServicesDisclosurerequirespregnancyservicescenterstodisclose whetherornottheyprovideorprovidereferralsforabortion,emergency contraception,orprenatalcare.AdministrativeCode20816(c)(e).Wehold thattheServicesDisclosureisnotsufficientlytailoredtotheCitysinterests undereitherstrictscrutinyorintermediatescrutiny. Evaluatingunderstrictscrutiny,weapplythesametailoringanalysisto theServicesDisclosureaswedidwithrespecttotheStatusDisclosure.Aswe explainedabove,requirementsthattheCitysponsoradvertisementsorpost signs,prosecutefraudandfalseadvertising,orimposeultrasoundlicensing requirementsareinsufficienttoensurethatwomenarereadilyawareofwhether ornotaparticularpregnancyservicescenterprovidestheservicessought. However,onthisrecord,theStatusDisclosure,byitself,mightnarrowlysatisfy theCitysinterest,asitalertsconsumerstoasmallbitofaccurateinformation aboutthetypeofserviceseachcenterprovidesmedicalornonmedicaleven thoughitdoesnotdiscussspecificservices.Cf.CentroTepeyac,722F.3dat190 (consideringwhether,inlightofordinancesstatusdisclosure,thecitysmessage thatpregnantwomenshouldconsultwithalicensedhealthcareproviderwas unneededspeech).
35 35 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 36

01/17/2014

1136388

40

Regardlessofwhetherlessrestrictivemeansexist,theServicesDisclosure overlyburdensPlaintiffsspeech.Whenevaluatingcompelledspeech,we considerthecontextinwhichthespeechismade.Riley,487U.S.at79697.Here, thecontextisapublicdebateoverthemoralityandefficacyofcontraceptionand abortion,forwhichmanyofthefacilitiesregulatedbyLocalLaw17provide alternatives.[E]xpressiononpublicissueshasalwaysrestedonthehighest rungonthehierarchyofFirstAmendmentvalues.NAACPv.Claiborne HardwareCo.,458U.S.886,913(1982)(internalquotationmarksomitted). Mandatingspeechthataspeakerwouldnototherwisemakenecessarilyalters thecontentofthespeech.Riley,487U.S.at795.Arequirementthatpregnancy servicescentersaddressabortion,emergencycontraception,orprenatalcareat thebeginningoftheircontactwithpotentialclientsaltersthecenterspolitical speechbymandatingthemannerinwhichthediscussionoftheseissuesbegins. Rileyisagaininstructive.Inthatcase,theSupremeCourtstruckdowna

statelawthatrequiredsolicitorstodisclosetopotentialdonorsthepercentageof charitablecontributionsthatwereturnedovertocharity.Id.Instrikingdown themandatorydisclosure,theCourtnotedthatifthepotentialdonoris unhappywiththedisclosedpercentage,thefundraiserwillnotlikelybegivena

36

36 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 37

01/17/2014

1136388

40

chancetoexplainthefigure;thedisclosurewillbethelastwordsspokenasthe donorclosesthedoororhangsupthephone.Id.at800.Wefacesimilar concernshere.TheServicesDisclosurewillchangethewayinwhicha pregnancyservicescenter,ifitsochooses,discussestheissuesofprenatalcare, emergencycontraception,andabortion.Thecentersmustbefreetoformulate theirownaddress.Becauseitmandatesdiscussionofcontroversialpolitical topics,theServicesDisclosurediffersfromthebrief,bland,andnonpejorative disclosurerequiredbytheStatusDisclosure.SeeTelco,885F.2dat1232. Finally,weconsiderwhetheradifferentanswerwouldobtainunder intermediatescrutiny,whichlookstowhethertheregulationatissueisnotmore extensivethannecessarytoserveasubstantialgovernmentalinterest.Whileitis acloserquestion,weconcludethatitwouldnot,consideringboththepolitical natureofthespeechandthefactthattheStatusDisclosureprovidesamore limitedalternativeregulation. C.TheGovernmentMessage Finally,theGovernmentMessagerequirespregnancyservicescentersto disclosethattheNewYorkCityDepartmentofHealthandMentalHygiene encourageswomenwhoareorwhomaybepregnanttoconsultwithalicensed
37

37 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 38

01/17/2014

1136388

40

provider.AdministrativeCode20816(a).Wealsoholdthatitisinsufficiently tailored. First,lessrestrictivealternativesexist.AsthedistrictcourtinCentro

Tepeyacnoted,thegovernmentinterestinensuringthatwomendonotforego medicaltreatmentmightbesatisfiedoncewomenwereawarethat[pregnancy servicescenters]donotstaffamedicalprofessional.779F.Supp.2dat468;see alsoCentroTepeyac,722F.3dat190.Second,theGovernmentMessagediffers fromboththeStatusDisclosureandtheServicesDisclosureinthattheCitycan communicatethismessagethroughanadvertisingcampaign.TheCitysbroad messagedoesnotrequireknowledgeofdiscreteinformationavailableonlyto individualpregnancyservicescenters. Wearealsoconcernedthatthisdisclosurerequirespregnancyservices centerstoadvertiseonbehalfoftheCity.Itmaybethecasethatmost,ifnotall, pregnancyservicescenterswouldagreethatpregnantwomenshouldseea doctor.Thatdecision,however,asthislitigationdemonstrates,isapublicissue subjecttodispute.TheGovernmentMessage,mandatingthatPlaintiffs affirmativelyespousethegovernmentspositiononacontestedpublicissue, deprivesPlaintiffsoftheirrighttocommunicatefreelyonmattersofpublic
38

38 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 39

01/17/2014

1136388

40

concern.Alliance,651F.3dat236(affirminggrantofpreliminaryinjunction enjoininggovernmentagenciesfromrequiringnongovernmentalorganizations toexplicitlyadoptstatementsopposingprostitutionasaconditionofreceiving governmentfunds).ThecircumstancesheredifferfromAllianceintwokey respects:(1)theregulationheredoesnotrequirethespeakertoclaimthemessage asitsown,seeid.at237,butinsteadqualifiesthatitcomesfromthegovernment; and(2)theregulationherewasnotenactedasaconditiontothereceiptof funding.Thefirstdistinctionisoflittleconcernhere,becausealawthatrequires aspeakertoadvertiseonbehalfofthegovernmentoffendstheConstitutioneven ifitisclearthatthegovernmentisthespeaker.SeeWooleyv.Maynard,430U.S. 705,715(1977)(invalidatingstatutethatturnedspeakersprivateproperty[into] amobilebillboardfortheStatesideologicalmessage).Theseconddistinction furtherunderscorestheFirstAmendmentviolation.Whilethegovernmentmay incidentallyencouragecertainspeechthroughitspowerto[choose]tofundone activitytotheexclusionoftheother,Rustv.Sullivan,500U.S.173,193(1991),it maynotdirectlymandat[e]thatPlaintiffsaffirmativelyespousethe governmentspositiononacontestedpublicissuethroughregulations,like LocalLaw17,thatthreatennotonlytofineordefundbutalsotoforciblyshut
39

39 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-1

Page: 40

01/17/2014

1136388

40

downnoncompliantentities,Alliance,651F.3dat236;seealsoTurner,512U.S.at 642(1994)(Lawsthatcompelspeakerstoutterordistributespeechbearinga particularmessagearesubjecttothesamerigorousscrutinyaslawsthat suppress,disadvantage,orimposedifferentialburdensuponspeechbecauseof itscontent.). Basedontheabove,weholdthattheGovernmentMessageis insufficientlytailoredtowithstandscrutiny. CONCLUSION Fortheforegoingreasons,thememorandumandorderofthedistrictcourt isAFFIRMEDinpartandVACATEDinpart.WeREMANDforfurther proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.

40

40 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-2

Page: 1

01/17/2014

1136388

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN
CHIEF JUDGE

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: January 17, 2014 Docket #: 11-2735cv Short Title: The Evergreen Association, Inc v. City of New York

DC Docket #: 11-cv-2055 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Docket #: 11-cv-2342 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Pauley

BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of costs is on the Court's website. The bill of costs must: * be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment; * be verified; * be served on all adversaries; * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits; * identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit; * include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page; * state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form; * state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction; * be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.

41 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-3

Page: 1

01/17/2014

1136388

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN
CHIEF JUDGE

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: January 17, 2014 Docket #: 11-2735cv Short Title: The Evergreen Association, Inc v. City of New York

DC Docket #: 11-cv-2055 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Docket #: 11-cv-2342 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Pauley

VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS Counsel for _________________________________________________________________________ respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the ________________________________________________________________ and in favor of _________________________________________________________________________ for insertion in the mandate. Docketing Fee _____________________

Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________ Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ______________ ____) _____________________ Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________

(VERIFICATION HERE) ________________________ Signature

42 of 43

Case: 11-2735

Document: 259-3

Page: 2

01/17/2014

1136388

43 of 43