Opinion ID: 770594
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Chill

Text: 51 The investigation by the HUD officials unquestionably chilled the plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights. It is true that the agency did not ban or seize the plaintiffs' materials, and officials in Washington ultimately decided not to pursue either criminal or civil sanctions against them. But in the First Amendment context, courts must look through forms to the substance of government conduct. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963). Informal measures, such as the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation, can violate the First Amendment also. Id. 8 This court has held that government officials violate this provision when their acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities. Mendocino Environmental Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Here, the type of investigation conducted and the manner in which the individual defendants carried out their functions more than meets that standard. 52 The HUD officials carried out an investigation that lasted more than eight months, substantially longer than the presumptive 100-day time limit set by 42 U.S.C. 3610(a)(1) (B)(iv). During the investigation, defendant Zurowski conveyed a conciliation proposal requiring the plaintiffs to cease all litigation and publications regarding the Bel Air project and advised the plaintiffs to accept it because they had violated the Fair Housing Act by distributing discriminatory flyers. Defendants Lee and Smith directed the plaintiffs under threat of subpoena to produce all their publications regarding the Bel Air project, minutes of relevant meetings, correspondence with other organizations, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons who were involved in or had witnessed the alleged discriminatory conduct. 9 Smith interrogated the plaintiffs, again under threat of subpoena, about their views and public statements in opposition to the Bel Air project. In a letter drafted by Smith, defendant Gillespie asserted HUD's purported authority to investigate allegations that individuals have engaged in speech advocating illegal acts, including discrimination against persons based on their physical or mental disabilities and stated that the plaintiffs had violated the Fair Housing Act by writing news articles which referenced the mental disability of the intended residents of the proposed project as a reason for denial of the project. Defendant Phillips told a major metropolitan newspaper that the plaintiffs had broken the law. 10 We conclude that these actions would have chilled or silenced a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in future First Amendment activities.