Document: 528 U.S. 32120 S.Ct. 483145 L.Ed.2d 451 Opinion of the CourtSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98-678 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER v. REPORTING PUBLISHING CORPORATION ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [December 7, 1999] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered opinion Court. 1 California Government Code §6254(f)(3) places two conditions on public access to arrestees' addresses that person requesting an address declare request is being made for one five prescribed purposes, and requestor also will not be used directly or indirectly sell a product service. 2 The District Court permanently enjoined enforcement statute, Appeals affirmed, holding statute was facially invalid because it unduly burdens commercial speech. We hold statutory section in question subject "facial" challenge. 3 Petitioner, Los Angeles Police Department, maintains records relating arrestees. Respondent, United Reporting Publishing Corporation, private publishing service provides names recently arrested individuals its customers, who include attorneys, insurance companies, drug alcohol counselors, driving schools. 4 Before July 1, 1996, respondent received under old version §6254, which generally required state local law agencies make name, address, occupation every individual by agency. Cal. Govt. §6254(f) (West 1995). Effective legislature amended limit public's victims' current addresses. shall public: 5 "[T]he agency victim crime, where requester declares penalty perjury scholarly, journalistic, political, governmental purpose, investigation purposes licensed investigator . except [certain crimes] remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant this paragraph any group individuals, execute declaration effect perjury." Supp. 1999). 6 Sections 6254(f)(1) (2) require public, inter alia, occupation, physical description, including date birth, agency, as well circumstances arrest.1 Thus, §6254(f ) limits only 7 effective amendment, sought declaratory injunctive relief 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amendment unconstitutional First Fourteenth Amendments States Constitution. On petitioner other denied because, according respondent, "[respondent's] employees could sign 6254(f)(3) declarations." Brief Respondent 5. did allege, nothing record before indicates, ever "declar[ed] perjury" would use "directly service," have been statute. See §6254(f)(3). 8 then complaint temporary restraining order. issued order, and, few days later, preliminary injunction. filed motion summary judgment, granted. In granting motion, construed respondent's claim presenting facial challenge §6254(f). Corp. Lungren, 946 F. 822, 823 (SD 1996). court held Amendment. 9 affirmed Court's invalidation. Highway Patrol, 146 F.3d 1133 (CA9 1998). concluded restricted speech, such, entitled " 'a limited measure protection, commensurate with subordinate position scale Amendment values.' Ibid. (quoting Ohralik Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 447, 456 (1978)). applied test set out Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Public Serv. Comm'n N. Y., 447 557, 566 (1980), found asserted interest protecting privacy substantial. But, "the numerous exceptions governmental, investigative render Amendment." F.3d, at 1140. noted "[h]aving one's printed paper far greater affront than receiving letter from attorney, substance abuse counselor, school eager help overcome his present difficulties (for fee, naturally)," thus "undermine counteract" preserving privacy. grant judgment favor upheld injunction against granted certiorari. 525 1121 (1999). 10 not, our cases, prevail "facial attack" Respondent's primary argument face, here. But we believe cases otherwise. 11 traditional rule "a whom may constitutionally ground conceivably unconstitutionally others situations Court." New York Ferber, 458 747, 767 (1982) (citing Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 610 [1973]). 12 Prototypical are challenges statutes based overbreadth. "At least when regulate proscribe speech transcendent value all society protected expression deemed justify allowing 'attacks overly broad no requirement making attack demonstrate own conduct regulated drawn requisite narrow specificity.'" Gooding Wilson, 405 518, 520 521 (1972) Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 486 [1965]). "This necessary persons whose refrain exercising their right fear criminal sanctions provided susceptible application expression." supra, 521. Thornhill Alabama, 310 88 (1940). 13 Gooding, example, defendant picketed Army headquarters building carrying signs opposing Vietnam war. A confrontation police occurred, result charged "'using opprobrious words abusive language tending cause breach peace.'" U.S., 518-519. Thornhill, prosecuted violation forbidding "'picket works place business such persons, firms, corporations, associations purpose hindering, delaying, interfering injuring lawful enterprise .'" 91. 14 This say threat prosecution condition entertainment permitted attacks appropriate present. See, e.g., National Endowment Arts Finley, 524 569 (1998) (entertaining funding scheme); Suitum Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 725 (1997) landowner's redevelopment plan); Anderson Edwards, 514 143 (1995) regulation restructuring disbursal welfare benefits). 15 allowance overbreadth exception Broadrick, 610). general reflects "cardinal principles" constitutional order: personal nature rights prudential limitations adjudication. U. S, 767. "By focusing factual situation us, similar development rule, face 'flesh blood' legal problems data 'relevant adequate informed judgment.'" Id., 768 (footnotes omitted). 16 Even though Amendment, doctrine casually employed. "Because wide-reaching effects striking down punished despite recognized 'strong medicine' employed hesitation, 'only last resort.'" 769 613)." '[F]acial adjudication rules practice function, outset, attenuates otherwise unprotected behavior forbids sanction moves "pure speech" toward even if expressive falls within scope valid laws 770 615). Board Airport Comm'rs Jews Jesus, Inc., 482 (1987). 17 Petitioner contends abridgment anyone's engage otherwise, but simply regulating hands department. 18 that, invalidation, petitioner's view correct. case government prohibiting speaker conveying already possesses. Rubin Coors Brewing Co., 476 (1995). merely requires wishes obtain arrestees must qualify do so. attempt therefore For assessing propriety what us more denial possession. decide give arrestee without violating Amendment.2 Cf. Houchins KQED, 438 (1978). 19 To extent challenge" seeks rely parties potential example does fit courts entertain challenges. No prosecution, see cutoff funds, NEA, hangs over heads. They seek just did, incurring burden prospect denied. Resort here warranted there "no possibility muted." Bates Arizona, 433 350, (1977). 20 wrong invalidate urges several grounds alternative bases affirmance, none them were passed they open remand properly presented preserved there. 21 accordingly 22 Reversed. Scalia, J., concurring SUPREME 23 24 25 26 Thomas joins, concurring. 27 I join agree insofar presents fact formally restriction upon determinative. As says, eliminates "chill" allow plaintiff complain about someone himself. 28 understand addressing as-applied leaving remand. That seems me permissible course, since Appeals' qualification Court, rested exclusively unconstitutionality hence purported applications. Though portions particular read narrowing nor offering invalidation affirmance. 29 Ginsburg renders immune necessarily well. subjects risk need protect speakers else raise law. entirely different whether allows press (which makes part domain), same time denies wish certain reality rather information. subsequent whether, justified addressed opinion. Ginsburg, 30 31 32 33 O'Connor, Souter, Breyer join, 34 opinion, recognizes analyzed information, ante, 7. sufficient reason reverse Ninth Circuit's judgment. 35 observes, issue restrict possess. Anyone comes domain free she sees fit. It true, Scalia suggests, ante 2, published journalists, indeed prohibited people using speak contains prohibition. Once domain, way. 36 could, notes, all. 8. appear selective disclosure has chosen instead impermissibly sure, provision kind subsidy arrestees, once decides benefit available doubt freedom how distributed. release those political views line party power. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. Umbehr, 518 668 (1996) (local officials terminate independent contractor criticizing policy). award illegitimate criterion viewpoint, support some supporting Regan Taxation With Representation Wash., 461 540 (1983). 37 Throughout argument, assumes §6254(f)(3)'s regime sense reducing total flow Whether correct clear depends point comparison. If publish everyone freely, easier system. choose between keeping proprietary themselves limits, might former option. event, disallowing lead overall secrecy less above, consideration disclosures discriminated basis viewpoint proscribed criterion. suggest society's argue upholding like inthis imposing all-or-nothing "nothing" State's easiest response. Stevens, dissenting 38 39 40 41 Kennedy dissenting. majority's characterization improper misguided. brief look reveals unequivocally advanced both "as applied" constitutionality (hereinafter Amendment). each six counts complaint, explicitly challenged "and applied." Complaint ¶¶29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43. alleged "will injured serious way Amendment;" specifically, claimed "has lost prospective clients sales, ultimately put business." ¶23. Finally, maintained continues "on 15.1 is, therefore, perfectly allegations direct injury decision pass validityof 43 determine similarly invoke doctrine. relevant challenger needs applications third parties. case, itself issue. Nor, my four-step dance, majority really reason, surely observing "California Ante, Moreover, think equally users special, legitimate, 44 different, difficult, available, small disfavored class. scholars, news media, politicians, others, while denying category solely intend purpose. points out, identified affiliation, discrimination clearly invalid. (concurring opinion). 45 What here, comparable obviously discrimination. plans who, turn, finds objectionable. proposed publication indisputably concedes independently acquires data, protects communicate others. 27; Cox Broadcasting Cohn, 420 469, 496 (1975). Similarly, supports parties' purposes. Shapero Kentucky 466, 472 (1988). desire prevent assume justifying conduct. 46 justification victims Although explain ban access, narrowly limiting insufficient can media investigators meet Amendment's vague criteria. plainly suffers "overall irrationality" undermined 476, 488 (1995), Greater Orleans Inc. States, 527 ___(1999). By widespread eviscerated rational believing truly these persons. Corp., 493 495. 47 likely, rationale lawyers soliciting unrepresented defendants.3 arguably consistent trying uphold ethics profession. Also stake however, important interests potentially giving defendants better needed professional assistance. Ariz., 376 Ultimately, fail core relies speech.4 48 withhold insulate actions scrutiny. entirely, "may deny infringes especially speech." Perry Sindermann, 408 593, 597 (1972). contrary "'produce [it] command directly.'" censor resulting follows, believe, discriminatory prohibit truthful accurate manner 49 Accordingly, respectfully dissent. Notes 50 1. Section 6254(f) provides, pertinent part: "Other provisions subdivision notwithstanding, following item endanger safety involved successful completion related investigation: "(1) full name individual's description color eyes hair, sex, height weight, arrest, booking, location surrounding amount bail set, currently held, charges upon, outstanding warrants jurisdictions parole probation holds." Subject restrictions imposed 841.5 Penal Code, time, substance, complaints requests assistance response thereto, including, regarding crimes committed incident investigated recorded, date, occurrence, report, age victim, crime incident, injuries, property, weapons involved. defined 220, 261, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9 withheld victim's request, parent guardian minor. When disclosing deleted minor, report accompanying compliance requirements paragraph." 51 2. equal protection challenge, we. Notes: 52 suggests "did qualify" suggestion "journalistic" serves primarily mere conduit users. sign, perjury, affidavit stating "not individuals." Not coincidentally, precisely uses belief qualified unrealistic, notion 2-to-4 years' imprisonment order alarming, least. 53 lower decisions simple invalidations perplexing. 4. phrased Gov. §6254 [is] limitation plaintiff's 824 1996) (emphasis added). Circuit reach "overbreadth arguments," id., 1133, 1140, n. (1998), indicating deciding 54 3. While evidence acting intended animus others' 13, 5, expressly rejected "discriminatory treatment suspect intends suppress ideas," Simon Schuster, Members Y. Crime Victims Bd., 502 105, 117 (1991). 55 Our repeatedly frowned regulations discriminate content identity speaker. ___, ___ (1999) (slip op., 1933) (Government cannot advertising casinos tribal casinos); 116 (government "singl[e] income derived activity income"); Arkansas Writers' Project, Ragland, 481 221, 229 (1987) (a tax applies magazines "is particularly repugnant principles: magazine's status content" omitted)); Tim, 468 641, 648 649 (1984) ("Regulations permit message tolerated Amendment"); Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. Minnesota Comm'r Revenue, 460 575, 582 (1983) "single[s] special treatment" unconstitutional); Dept. Chicago Mosley, 92, 96 ("[W]e frequently condemned among medium expression").

Category: 2