Document: 442 U.S. 289 99 S.Ct. 2301 60 L.Ed.2d 895 Bruce BABBITT, Governor of the State Arizona, et al., Appellants,v.UNITED FARM WORKERS NATIONAL UNION, etc., al. No. 78-225. Argued Feb. 21, 1979. Decided June 5, Syllabus Appellees (a farmworkers' union, a union agent, farmworkers, and supporter) brought suit in Federal District Court Arizona seeking declaration constitutionality various provisions Arizona's farm labor statute, as well entire an injunction against its enforcement. A three-judge court ruled unconstitutional on grounds (1) specifying procedures for election employee bargaining representatives; (2) limiting publicity directed at consumers agricultural products; (3) imposing criminal penalty violations statute; (4) excusing employer from furnishing any materials, information, time, or facilities to enable it communicate with employer's employees (access provision); (5) governing arbitration disputes, construed by mandating compulsory arbitration. Deeming these inseparable remainder went declare whole statute enjoined Held: 1. The challenges regulating procedures, consumer publicity, sanctions present case controversy, but access are not justiciable. Pp. 297-305. (a) fact that appellees have invoked provision past expressed intention do so future, does defeat justiciability their challenge view nature claim delays attending statutory scheme technical limitations who may vote unit elections severely curtail freedom association. To await appellees' participation would assist resolution threshold question whether subject scrutiny under First Amendment all, this is dispositive there no warrant postponing consideration claim. 299-301. (b) With respect (which face proscribes, unfair practice, dishonest, untruthful, deceptive publicity) unconstitutionally penalizes inaccuracies inadvertently uttered, reason fear prosecution violation provision, where has disavowed invoking applies terms "[a]ny person . violates provision" statute) unions commit practices. Accordingly, positions parties sufficiently adverse controversy. For same reasons, controversy also presented such unduly restricts protected speech products whom primary dispute. 301-303. (c) Where clear desire engage prohibited campaigns, vague was properly entertained be raised appeal. If were truly vague, should expected pursue collective activities peril. P. 303. (d) Appellees' justiciable, only conjectural anticipate will denied but, more importantly, Fourteenth Amendments because deprives state agency responsible enforcing discretion compel employers furnish enumerated items, depends upon attributes situs involved. An opinion time patently advisory, adjudication must wait until can assert interest particular palpable basis believing refused. Pp.303-304. (e) Similarly, ruling allegedly wholly record discloses real concrete dispute application themselves acknowledging elect responses arguably unlawful strike other than agreeing arbitrate, never having contested provision. 304-305. 2. considered even though prior construction courts lacking, abstained adjudicating material unresolved questions law determined courts. 305-312. state-court obviate need decision constitutional issue materially alter decided, affected all challenge. 306. might broadly applying affirmatively proscribing commanding courses conduct, narrowly certain susceptible being "violated," either reasonably constructions undercut modify vagueness attack otherwise significantly requiring resolution. Pp.307-308. In ambiguous varying interpretations which substantially affect presented, erred entertaining aspects without benefit thereof 308-312. 3. invalidating constitutionally obliged provide pursuant employees, through chosen representative negotiate, undertaken assertedly niggardly fashion, presents general matter problems. Moreover, preclude voluntary recognition employer. 312-314. 449 F.Supp. 449, reversed remanded. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D. C., appellants. Jerome Cohen, Salinas, Cal., appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered Court. 1 we review setting aside statute. perceived problems five Act; deeming Act, declared Act We conclude two specifically invalidated did within jurisdiction federal hence been adjudicated. Although attacks deciding issues posed material, Finally, believe reached merits fifth it. reverse judgment 2 * 1972, Legislature enacted comprehensive regulation employment relations. Agricultural Employment Relations Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 23-1381 23-1395 (Supp.1978). designates representatives, establishes rights proscribes range practices, civil enforcement ensure compliance substantive Act. 3 Appellees—the United Farm Workers National Union (UFW), agent UFW, named supporter UFW commenced secure unconstitutionality sections enforcement.1 convened entertain action. On instances light imposition penalties "violat[ion of] § 23-1392 (Supp.1978), presently justiciable.2 Reaching some claims, distinct Act.3 Specifically, disapproved section 23-1389,4 ground that, failing account seasonal peaks, precluded consummation before most workers dispersed frustrated associational employees. restricted class technically eligible representatives burdened workers' association second respect.5 4 court, moreover, violative products, 23-1385(B)(8),6 section, proscribed innocent deliberately false representations. infirm additional true false, implicating product trade name "may include" protesting organization engaged 5 struck down statute's 23-1392,7 grounds, held 23-1385(C).8 thought latter permitted prevent migratory farmworkers residing property, guarantees free 6 arbitration, 23-1393(B),9 due process right jury trial, found guaranteed Seventh Amendment. fell "by inseparability inoperability apart invalid." 467 (Ariz.1978). 7 Appellants sought below. Because substantial doubts regarding postponed our merits. 439 891, 247, 58 236 (1978). now hold Court,10 pertaining judicial time. further provisions, although think lacking unable sustain Court's declaration, however, facially unconstitutional. II 8 address first alleged meaning Art. III Constitution abstract currently justiciable court. difference between "case controversy" one degree, course, discernible precise test. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 270, 273, 61 510, 512, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941). basic inquiry "conflicting contentions real, legal interests, definite concrete, hypothetical abstract." Railway Mail Assn. Corsi, 326 88, 93, 65 1483, 1487, 89 2072 (1945); see Evers Dwyer, 358 202, 203, 79 178, 179, 222 (1958); supra. 9 plaintiff demonstrate realistic danger sustaining direct injury result operation O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 494, 94 669, 675, 38 674 (1974). But "[o]ne threatened obtain preventive relief. certainly impending, enough." Pennsylvania West Virginia, 262 553, 593, 43 658, 663, 67 1117 (1923); Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 419 102, 143, 95 335, 358, 42 320 (1974); Pierce Society Sisters, 268 526, 45 571, 574, 69 1070 (1925). 10 When contesting "it necessary [the plaintiff] expose himself actual arrest entitled [the] he claims deters exercise his rights." Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 459, 1209, 1216, 39 505 Epperson Arkansas, 393 97, 266, 21 228 (1968); supra, 204, S.Ct., 179. course conduct interest, exists credible threat thereunder, "should required undergo sole means relief." Doe Bolton, 410 188, 93 739, 745, 35 201 (1973). "persons fears except those imaginary speculative, accepted appropriate plaintiffs." Younger Harris, 401 37, 42, 91 746, 749, 27 669 (1971); Golden Zwickler, 394 103, 956, 22 113 (1969). plaintiffs "do they ever prosecution, likely, remotely possible," allege 749. 11 Examining adjudicated foregoing principles, sanctions—but challenges—present controversy.11 As already noted, principal complaint about entail inescapable conducting promptly enough permit many production crops short seasons. assail austere participate admittedly Act's nor doing future. But, it, reluctance 12 insist select bargain over conditions. read duly elected them. maintain, adduced evidence tending prove, frustrate rather facilitate democratic selection representatives. And declined lack representing negotiations employers, procedures' asserted futility. Indeed, represent organize them bargaining. participated nearly 400 California amenable prompt fair elections. comparable opportunity said impose continuing burden rights. 13 Even challenged sure work alleged, "a better factual available." U.S., 358. Thus, appellants urge decline undertake invoke procedures. way, acquire information how actually operate, lieu predictive introduced trial.12 persuaded, awaiting all. regard challenge—as elaborated below—we 14 twofold limitation now. Section 23-1385(B)(8) makes practice "[t]o induce encourage ultimate refrain purchasing, consuming using use untruthful publicity." criminally punishable. 23-1392. maintain uttered appeals. 15 shows actively campaigns continue boycott State. plan propagate untruths, contend—as observed—that "erroneous statement inevitable debate." New York Times Sullivan, 376 254, 271, 84 710, 721, 686 (1964). They submit avoid appeals, thus forgo full what It urged, accordingly, plainly poses 16 yet applied commissions including forbidden publicity. when speculative "first statute." 1216. fearing ban specified forms publicity.13 view, misrepresentations 17 limit appeals involved dispute; construe "publicity trademark, generic include another producer user name." restricting speech. same. reasons aspect well. 18 itself, authorizes contend give notice made criminal. aver previously engaged, future engage, organizing, boycotting, picketing, striking, collective-bargaining regulated Act.14 cannot visited pursuing much protected. least precision here 19 23-1385(C), stipulates "[n]o shall make available employer, members organization, supporters, adherents." insist, held, Board—charged responsibility organizations desirous communicating located employers' property Constitution. 20 inevitably seek order simply farmworkers. denied. More inextricably liken camps company town Marsh Alabama, 501, 66 276, 90 265 (1946), operate. Yet impossible know places fitting hypothesize event come pass, could advisory; therefore improperly That specifies "upon filing verified petition showing unlawfully boycott, threatening resulting cessation prevention loss, spoilage, deterioration, reduction grade, quality marketability commodity commodities human consumption commercial quantities." 23-1393(B). invokes court's temporary restraining enjoin strike, "must condition thereto agree binding settling issues." if arbitrator, appoint one. us, insufficiently acknowledge assuming occur, arbitrate. clause. "[t]he three judge below own motion 1393(B) Amendment." Brief 71 n. 153. Appellees, instead, scheme, consider 10, clear, then, advisory. 23 authoritatively issue. disagree submitted courts, considering pending 24 observed, " '[a]bstention escape [from immediate decision] limited "special circumstances." ' Kusper Pontikes, 51, 54, 303, 306, 260 (1973), quoting Lake Carriers' MacMullan, 406 498, 509, 92 1749, 1756, 32 257 (1972). "The paradigm 'special circumstances' abstention judiciary necessity reaching question." 306; Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 249, 88 391, 396, 444 (1967); Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 176-177, 1025, 1030, 1152 (1959); Railroad Comm'n Pullman 496, 643, 971 Of doctrine "contemplates deference uncertain." Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 534, 1177, 1182, 50 (1965). "fairly interpretation render unnecessary question," id., 535, "in friction federal-state relations, interference important functions, tentative decisions law, premature adjudication," 1182. 25 decided. discuss, insofar bears matter, pointedly clear. perceive declining decide notwithstanding absence adjudication. conclude, provides pertinent part Act] guilty misdemeanor." leaves doubt elicit sanctions. concluded, observing "[c]onsidering enormous variety covered section] clearly men common intelligence guess meaning." F.Supp., 453. elaborated: "There way anyone apply advance, adequately define is, therefore, clause Ibid. 26 Appellants, themselves, argue unambiguous. enforced 'violatio[n]' Act." 37. example, treated violations. possible, proscribe command conduct. reaches of" Alternatively, portions "violated" reach section. case, evident attack. broadly, operate conjunction restrict pursuit activities. authoritative resolution.15 28 "extensive adjudications, impact situations, [would bring statute] bounds permissible certainty," inappropriate. Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 378, 1316, 1326, determine single proceeding modifies. "uncertain [turns] choice several alternative meanings "afforded reasonable pass upon" review. 176, 1030. 29 argued proscription intolerably inhibits freely discuss concerning laborers crops. submit, fairly knowledge falsity reckless disregard truth falsity. qualification prohibition misstatements include, effect presented. 30 arguable suggest. (Emphasis added.) face, forbid propagation untruths more. Rather, condemnable, "dishonest" "deceptive" untruthful. "untruthful" falsity.16 31 sure, "[p]ermissible inducement encouragement truthful, honest nondeceptive ." phrase indicate representations denotes "truthful, publicity" permissible, prohibited. prohibitory preceding introduces ambiguity suitable sum, contention precludes prohibits solely employers. discussed, declares purchasing then stipulates: 33 "Permissible identifies produced Permissible 34 nowhere indicates ranging beyond disagreement accorded affirmative protection. language ameliorate concerns.17 construed, prohibit states expressing views, argument, making dissemination views written, printed, graphic, visual auditory form, expression contains reprisal force promise benefit, constitute 23-1385(C) appear qualify 23-1385(B)(8), "an agents." Were interpreted intercept expressions embodying force, validity assume character different construction. 36 sensitive repair after extensive litigation arena. nevertheless face.18 IV 37 remain considered. contend, This freedom, said, entails liberty join collectively express position create certified complaints ineffective matters Accepting individually voice Givhan Western Line Consolidated School Dist., 410, 693, 619 (1979); cf. Madison Dist. Wisconsin Comm'n, 429 173-175, 97 421, 425-426, (1976), afford dialogue listen. procedure representative, negotiate. problems.19 desires independently readily occur. pursued designate exclusive bargain—rights conferred discern difficulty efficacious like. Reversed 40 BRENNAN MARSHALL joins, concurring dissenting part. 41 I Court, exception respectfully dissent holding 23-1392, had stressed "[a]bstention exception, rule. 'The extraordinary narrow duty adjudicate County Allegheny Frank Mashuda 185, 188-189, 1060, 1063, 1163, 1166 (1959)." Colorado River Water Conservation States, 424 800, 813, 96 1236, 1244, 47 483 (1976). issue, needless "between pronouncements policies." Reetz Bozanich, 397 82, 87, 788, 790, 68 (1970). today correctly points out 'fairly question,' [Harman 528], [1177], 1182 [, 50] [1965]." Ante, supplied.) 23-1392.1 part: "Any article misdemeanor. carried outside Arizona." 44 concluded "[i]t [its] cuts across covers [Arizona Relations] just area acceptable. says plain English 'any person' [that] 'who misdemeanor .' 453 overbroad.2 correct "plain unambiguous."3 Davis Mann, 678, 690, 1441, 1447, 609 "obviously construction" 251 14, 397, (1967). every attorney knows, assiduous discrimination. resorts lawyerly legerdemain concludes perhaps find "that [Agricultural 'violated' section." 307. potential reads into derive words invention, uncertainty "fairly" statute.4 46 Abstention particularly inappropriate impacts directly precious creates regulate employers.5 impairment interests strongly counsels abstention. automatic rule whenever faced doubtful law; involves discretionary equity powers. Ascertainment exist circumstances,' Propper Clark, 337 472, 1333, 1480, prerequisite case-by-case basis. 500, 645, 971; NAACP Bennett, 471, 1192, 1375." 375, 1324, Relevant equitable discretion, "the deprivation probable consequences abstaining." 537, 1183, "This often remarked considerations delay expense gives rise." [498], [1749], 1757 257], England Medical Examiners, 375 411, 418, 461, 466, 440, 446 (1964)." Bellotti Baird, 428 132, 150, 2857, 2867, 49 844 Therefore, "constitutionally association,"Baggett stake, becomes especially "[i]n [a] action suffer proceedings itself impermissible chilling very seeks protect." 252, 397. financial resources throughout long litigation, fall cold shadow liability.6 self-censorship abhorrent reasons. tolerated slender managed manifestly unjustified.7 invalid pre-empted statutes, imposed commerce, equal protection, amounted bill attainder. addition, parts analyze why existed each sections. private official detailed stipulation filed parties, "hypothetical, abstract, generalized." 452 did, focus crime violate deemed severable rest relied heavily conclusion justify 454. so, connection 23-1389 dealing properties, trial relative provisions. explain selecting passed judgment. selected secret ballot purpose majority requires Board ascertain purposes investigate alleging facts indicating representation schedule hearing cause exist. exists, certify results thereof. details manner conducted. election. Additionally, conducted valid months. sets eligibility requirements thereunder. imposes obligations Board, interested bargaining-unit qualified vote. whereby rescind authority contemplates voting "agricultural employees," 23-1389(A), defined 23-1382(1) exclude brief history agents: "To provides: knowingly resists, prevents, impedes interferes member board agents agencies performance duties article, "No be, 23-1393(B) "In grant, proper grant provided ten-day enjoining subsection, issues. arbitrator days awards order, Any injunctive relief Rule Rules Civil Procedure quantities. market value thousand dollars numerous expressly After disapproving appeal, "there obviously plaintiffs' claimed protection violation." 466. entirety, finding explicitly Id., 467. insufficient instance contended standing appellee dubious other. "sufficient 'personal stake' determination aforementioned provisions] 'a admitting specific decree conclusive character.' Buckley Valeo, 1, 12, 612, 631, 659 (1976) (footnote omitted), Aetna Life Ins. Haworth, 300 227, 57 464, 81 617 (1937). 357 458, 78 1169, 1488 (1958). assess remaining 631. Though waiting unsuccessfully remove existence little done remedy incurred Challengers left too far underway consummated See, e. g., Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 333 2, 995, 998, 274 (1972); Moore Ogilvie, 814, 816, 1493, 1494, (1969); Williams Rhodes, 23, 34-35, (1968). Justiciability cases prospect occurrence impending Storer Brown, 724, 737 8, 1274, 1282, 714 Rosario Rockefeller, 752, 756 1245, 1249, (1973); 998. There lapse understanding operation, possible limits application, simplifying challenges, increasing likelihood timely held." 1283 (emphasis added). sanctions, therein. issuance administrative cease-and-desist 23-1390(C), court-ordered injunction, 23-1390(E), (J), (K), support property); 23-1385(B)(7) (boycotts); 23-1385(B)(12) (picketing boycotts); 23-1385(B)(13) (striking minorities); 23-1384, 23-1385(D) (collective bargaining). suggests unambiguous needs improper. State's reluctant substance warranting criminalizes departure adequate overbroad require shielded punishment. course. construing apparently satisfy appellees, understood declaring sanction damaging falsehoods perpetrated unknowingly recklessness. role suits nonmedia defendants, implications causes injurious defamation Time, Inc. Hill, 385 374, 87 456 Linn Plant Guard Workers, 383 53, 86 657, 582 (1966), remedies dependent recklessness, grounded policy, overtones. Furthermore, vulnerable culpable, prospective directing defendant cease publishing false. whose represent, doubt. picketing circumscribed. AFL Swing, 321, 568, 855 Additional difficulties arise picketing. aimed discouraging neutral barred compatibly Constitution, Carpenters Ritter's Cafe, 315 722, 62 807, 1143 (1942); NLRB Fruit Packers, 58, 129 (1964), noted purposes, qualitatively "different modes communication." Hughes Superior 339 460, 465, 70 718, 985 (1950); 17, 633; Teamsters Vogt, Inc., 354 284, 77 1166, 1347 (1957). suggested reduced protect definitive 178-179, 1031, (1959). best addressed instance. deny law. argument understand embrace assault abeyance resort relationship concur 23-1385(B)(8). "unconstitutionally vague." stated: "Considering involve rights, meaning. doctrine, unambiguous," necessarily mean Due Process Clause unambiguously which, prohibitions, vague. still extraordinarily unlikely complex definitively specify exact circumstances, abstain exercising jurisdiction. stated Procunier Martinez, 416 1800, 1805, 224 (1974): "Where ., individuals wish forswear activity scope terms, required. [Baggett 360,] [1316,] 1326 377] [1964]. eliminate difficulty. Rather 'extensive situations', 'within certainty.' 1385(B)(8), crime. deterred regulations discourage powerfully regulations. Such apt "steer wider zone," Speiser Randall, 513, 1332, 1342, 1460 (1958), likely contract "breathing space" survival "First freedoms." Button, 371 415, 433, 83 328, 338, (1963). reason, follow permits regulated, punished. Gertz Robert Welch, 418 323, 348-350, 2997, 3011-3012, 789 involved, my remand "to 18.

Category: 8