Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Defendants *
* * * * * * * * *
The Court has held a hearing and had the benefit of the
arguments of counsel.
I. INTRODUCTION
Catholic Church.1
5
Plaintiffs also named the Baltimore City Health Department
as a defendant but agree that claims against the Baltimore City
Health Department be dismissed without prejudice (Pls.’ Opp’n in
[Document 17] at 34).
3
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 4 of 29
A. Dismissal Standard
order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is
6
MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. §20-214 (West 2011)
7
All "rule" references herein are to the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
4
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 5 of 29
Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly,
(2).
5
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 6 of 29
e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, in order to
6
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 7 of 29
C. Standard Applicable
D. Rule 56(f)
7
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 8 of 29
¶ 3-6).
to litigation”).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiffs
and life skills. The CENTER offers its clients bible study,
8
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 9 of 29
premises rent-free.
B. The Ordinance
Id. §3-502(A).
9
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 10 of 29
Id. §3-502(B).
as:
(2) Who:
(A) Abortions; or
Id. §3-501.
10
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 11 of 29
birth-control methods.
8
A non-compliant pregnancy center may also be subject to a
criminal misdemeanor charge under Health Article §2-211. If
convicted of the misdemeanor, the pregnancy center is subject to
a fine of $200, plus $50 for each day the offense continues. The
non-payment of fines could result in the pregnancy center being
held in contempt of court. BALT. CITY CODE ART. I, §§ 40-41.
11
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 12 of 29
C. Standing
suffered and the conduct complained of; and (3) that a favorable
not require the Archbishop and St. Brigid’s to take any action
12
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 13 of 29
does not find, however, that the CENTER’s compliance with the
standing.
shall, herein, refer to the positions taken by the amici and the
D. Freedom of Speech
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937) (Cardozo, J.). The First
13
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 14 of 29
14
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 15 of 29
1. Level of Scrutiny
15
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 16 of 29
Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 64-68 (1983). Commercial speech
Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557,
561 (1980).
16
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 17 of 29
[Document 24 Ex. 1]
9
Determining whether speech is commercial does not depend on
the speaker’s status as a non-profit entity, but rather on the
nature of the transaction proposed by the speaker. Vill. of
Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 632
(1980). See also Virginia Vermiculite Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
156 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 1998) (explaining “the dispositive
inquiry is whether the transaction is commercial, not whether
the entity engaging in the transaction is commercial”).
17
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 18 of 29
protection.
protection.
10
In Milavetz, the parties agreed that the challenged
provisions only regulate commercial speech. 130 S. Ct. at 1339.
18
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 19 of 29
nonetheless apply. The Supreme Court has held that “we do not
over to charity).
19
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 20 of 29
protected speech.
20
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 21 of 29
11
It is worth noting that during consideration of the
Ordinance, an amendment was offered requiring pro-life and pro-
choice pregnancy centers alike to provide disclosures regarding
the services offered. The amendment was defeated by a 10 to 5
margin. (Pls.’ Mot. [Document 9], Ex. E).
21
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 22 of 29
within eight feet of anyone inside the buffer zone. The Court
12
A principal component of the evidence presented to the
Baltimore City Council regarding deceptive advertising was a
2006 report released by U.S. Representative Henry Waxman. See
Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, Committee on
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, FALSE AND
MISLEADING HEALTH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY FEDERALLY FUNDED
PREGNANCY RESOURCE CENTERS at 1-2 (2006). (Defs. Surreply
[Document 27], Ex. 1).
22
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 23 of 29
Hill was content and viewpoint neutral because the statute “was
the jurisdiction.
birth-control.
23
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 24 of 29
laws).
24
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 25 of 29
waiting areas.
25
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 26 of 29
available.
13
Plaintiffs assert that the disclaimer forces them to state
untruthfully that the CENTER “does not provide or make referral
for abortion or birth-control services” when in fact the CENTER
promotes abstinence and natural family planning as effective
birth-control techniques. Defendants contend that the Ordinance
allows for flexibility in phrasing the disclaimer. Those subject
to the disclaimer requirement must only indicate “substantially
to the effect” that they do not provide or refer for abortions
or [certain] birth-control methods, leaving open the ability to
list the services they actually offer as exceptions to the
general disclaimer. The Court would note that such an
“exception” statement would increase the effect of the
disclaimer upon a center’s freedom of speech by highlighting (in
a negative manner) those birth-control methods the center
supports.
26
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 27 of 29
itself.
In sum, the Court holds that the Ordinance does not meet
27
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 28 of 29
E. Additional Claims
In addition to their Freedom of Speech claim, Plaintiffs
interests).
impression under state law that need not, and should not, first
28
Case 1:10-cv-00760-MJG Document 32 Filed 01/28/11 Page 29 of 29
IV. CONCLUSION
/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
29