Opinion ID: 888608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Injunction as an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint of Free Speech

Text: ¶ 24 The District Court concluded that the speech Dr. Cole was enjoined from engaging in was harassing, intimidating, or threatening, and therefore not constitutionally protected. Dr. Cole maintains this was error. In particular, Dr. Cole argues that the District Court failed to properly evaluate whether the terms of the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech under Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976) and Kuiper v. Dist. Ct. of the Eighth Jud. Dist., 193 Mont. 452, 632 P.2d 694 (1981). Dr. Cole asserts that under Kuiper and Nebraska Press, the District Court was required to adhere to the following test but failed to do so: Before a trial court can enter a protective order restraining free expression, the court must find that three criteria exist: (1) The harm posed by dissemination must be substantial and serious. (2) The restraining order must be narrowly drawn and be precise. (3) There must be no alternative means of protecting the public interest which intrudes less directly on expression. In assessing the propriety of a protective order in each case, the trial court must consider and make necessary findings on each element of the standard. Kuiper, 193 Mont. at 458-59, 632 P.2d at 698 (citing Neb. Press, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683; In re Halkin, 598 F.2d 176 (D.C.Cir.1979)). ¶ 25 St. James argues that Dr. Cole's demonstrated course of conduct, combined with his direct threat to Dr. Chacko that bad things can happen to you, shows that he was engaging in harassing and intimidating speech not protected by the Constitution. St. James argues its position is supported by, among others, State v. Nye, 283 Mont. 505, 943 P.2d 96 (1997). Moreover, St. James asserts that Dr. Cole's reliance on Nebraska Press and Kuiper in this case is misplaced. ¶ 26 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution both protect the right to free speech. The right to free speech is a fundamental personal right and essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503-04, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1961, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984). Of all the forms of infringement on the right to free speech prior restraints are the most serious and least tolerable. . . . Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 559, 96 S.Ct. at 2803. In fact, the elimination of prior restraints on free speech was a `leading purpose' in the adoption of the First Amendment. Carroll v. Pres. and Commrs. of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 347, 351 n. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 325 (1968) (quoting Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451-452, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938)). The United States Supreme Court has defined prior restraints as follows: The term prior restraint is used to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur. Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activitiesare classic examples of prior restraints. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2771, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993) (quotation omitted). ¶ 27 However, not every injunction that amounts to a prior restraint is impermissible. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commn. on Human Rel., 413 U.S. 376, 390, 93 S.Ct. 2553, 2561, 37 L.Ed.2d 669 (1973); Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 570, 96 S.Ct. at 2808 (This Court has frequently denied that First Amendment rights are absolute and has consistently rejected the proposition that a prior restraint can never be employed.). An injunction that is narrowly tailored, based upon a continuing course of repetitive speech, and granted only after a final adjudication on the merits that the speech is unprotected does not constitute an unlawful prior restraint. Auburn Police Union v. Carpenter, 8 F.3d 886, 903 (1st Cir.1993) (citing Pittsburgh Press Co., 413 U.S. at 390, 93 S.Ct. 2553; Securities & Exch. Commn. v. Wall St. Publ. Inst., Inc., 851 F.2d 365, 370 (D.C.Cir.1988)); accord Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 156 P.3d 339, 347 (Ca.2007). ¶ 28 For instance, the United States Supreme Court has stated that it determines the constitutionality of content-neutral injunctions in the First Amendment area by considering whether they burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest. Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 2525, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994). This is in keeping with the First Amendment's repugnance to prior restraints and the general rule, quite apart from First Amendment considerations, that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. Madsen, 512 U.S. at 765, 114 S.Ct. at 2525 (quotation omitted). More recently, the Supreme Court has reiterated this view, stating that a prior restraint should not swee[p] any more broadly than necessary and that [a]n order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be precis[ely] and narrowly tailored to achieve the pin-pointed objective of the needs of the case. Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734, 738, 125 S.Ct. 2108, 2111, 161 L.Ed.2d 1042 (2005) (quotations omitted, first alteration in original). ¶ 29 It is important to bear in mind that neither the First Amendment nor Article II, Section 7 provide unlimited protection for all forms of speech. Some forms of speech and conduct are not considered constitutionally protected. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problems. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting' wordsthose which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas. Furthermore, free speech does not include the right to cause substantial emotional distress by harassment or intimidation. Activities which are intended to embarrass, annoy or harass . . . are not protected by the First Amendment. Nye, 283 Mont. at 512, 943 P.2d at 101 (quoting State v. Cooney, 271 Mont. 42, 48, 894 P.2d 303, 307 (1995) (other citations omitted)). ¶ 30 Before turning to an evaluation of the injunction before us, we deem it appropriate to address the applicability of the three-prong test from Kuiper to the instant case. (See ¶ 24). In Kuiper we applied a three-prong test from In re Halkin to determine the whether the terms of a protective order amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. Kuiper, 193 Mont. at 456-59, 632 P.2d at 696-98; In re Halkin, 598 F.2d at 191. While the Kuiper and Halkin approach might still be viable in the discovery context, See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 28-29, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2205, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984) (affirming a decision of the Washington State Supreme Court which conflicts with the holding of In re Halkin), there is nonetheless good reason to conclude that this approach should be limited to cases involving the intersection between discovery requests in on-going litigation and the First Amendment. See Seattle Times Co., 467 U.S. at 34, 104 S.Ct. at 2208 ([O]ur consideration of . . . protective orders . . . takes into account the unique position that such orders occupy in relation to the First Amendment.). In fact, more recent pronouncements of both the United States Supreme Court, and other courts as well, have not relied upon the In re Halkin three-prong test when considering whether injunctions outside the context of the discovery process amount to unconstitutional prior restraints. Madsen, 512 U.S. at 765, 114 S.Ct. at 2525; Tory, 544 U.S. at 738, 125 S.Ct. at 2111; Auburn Police Union, 8 F.3d at 903; Balboa Island, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 156 P.3d at 349. ¶ 31 Accordingly, rather than apply the three-prong test from Kuiper in this case, we will focus our inquiry on whether the injunction issued against Dr. Cole sweep[s] any more broadly than necessary and whether it is precis[ely] and narrowly tailored to achieve the pin-pointed objective of the needs of the case. Tory, 544 U.S. at 738, 125 S.Ct. at 2111 (quotations and original alterations omitted). ¶ 32 After reviewing the terms of the injunction, we conclude that paragraph (d) is overly-broad and must be stricken. By its very terms, it does not prohibit conduct which is embarrassing, annoying or harassing, but enjoins Dr. Cole from [i]ndicating to patients, potential patients or physicians, that Dr. Chacko, or the radiology services offered by St. James, are in any manner inadequate or unprofessional, either directly or indirectly. . . . As noted by Amici Drs. Popovich, Sorini, Pullman, Chamberlin & Cortese and Southwest Montana Independent Healthcare Association, LLC, the terms of this injunction could enjoin Dr. Cole from giving professional opinions in the course of providing radiology services. For instance, if Dr. Cole reviewed a radiology report from St. James which he believed contained inaccuracies or errors, he could be enjoined from expressing this opinion because it could be construed as a direct or indirect suggestion that the radiology services provided by St. James were not professional or adequate. As Amici point out, this could put Dr. Cole in a position that is unethical with regard to his duty to provide professional medical services to his patients. Thus, paragraph (d) sweeps too broadly, the District Court erred as a matter of law in issuing it, and it must be stricken. ¶ 33 Paragraph (e), as currently written, is overbroad as well. It enjoins Dr. Cole from [c]alling, writing, or have contact of any kind, with any potential candidate for the radiology department at St. James, that would discourage or intimidate such candidate from negotiating or contracting with St. James, either directly or indirectly. . . . As Amici point out, this injunction could prohibit Dr. Cole from giving truthful information concerning his opinion of St. James if a potential candidate were to contact him in order to solicit his views. As such, it could enjoin him from engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. ¶ 34 However, because portions of paragraph (e) do enjoin Dr. Cole from intimidating speech and conduct which is not constitutionally protected (see ¶ 29), this paragraph would be permissible if reformed as follows: Calling, writing, or having contact of any kind, with any potential candidate for the radiology department at St. James, that would discourage or intimidate such candidate from negotiating or contracting with St. James, either directly or indirectly. . . . ¶ 35 Thus, we conclude that paragraph (e), insofar as it enjoins discouraging conversation, is overbroad. ¶ 36 With respect to paragraph (a), we find that it is constitutionally permissible under the present circumstances and precis[ely] and narrowly tailored to achieve the pinpointed objectives of the needs of the case. Tory, 544 U.S. at 738, 125 S.Ct. at 2111 (quotations and original alteration omitted). However, if St. James does establish a working relationship with Boston University, and Dr. Cole continues to provide radiology services for St. James, it is conceivable that Dr. Cole might need to interact with members of Boston University in the course of providing radiology services. If the needs of the case change in this regard, then Dr. Cole could petition the District Court for an appropriate modification of the injunction. ¶ 37 Lastly, because paragraphs (b), (c), and (f) target only speech and conduct that is intended to embarrass, annoy, harass or threaten, such conduct may be enjoined and does not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. See Balboa Island Village, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 320, 156 P.3d at 347 (speech determined to be not constitutionally protected may be enjoined); Ansonia Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Ansonia Tenants' Coalition, Inc., 253 A.D.2d 706, 677 N.Y.S.2d 575, 576 (1st Dept.1998) (holding that defendants may be enjoined from approaching, accosting, initiating communications with, or disturbing visitors to an apartment complex because such conduct is not constitutionally protected); See also Bihari v. Gross, 119 F.Supp.2d 309, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing similar examples). Based on the needs of the case, these paragraphs are all pin-pointed precisely toward forms of speech and conduct which are not constitutionally protected; thus, these paragraphs may stand. ¶ 38 Our determination that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (f) are constitutional, that paragraph (e) must be reformed, and that paragraph (d) must be stricken, does not end our inquiry because Dr. Cole also argues that the injunction is infirm in aspects unrelated to whether its terms are unconstitutional as a matter of law. Thus, we now evaluate these challenges to the injunction.