Opinion ID: 201623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Litigation-related bonds

Text: 15 We note at the outset that the instant case challenges the bond requirement on First Amendment grounds. Accordingly, DACO's reliance on Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante, 535 F.2d 140 (1st Cir.1976), is misplaced. In Hawes, we upheld the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico's local rule requiring nonresident plaintiffs to post a bond as security against the assessment of costs, expenses, and attorney's fees against equal protection and Privileges and Immunities Clause challenges. Id. at 143. The bond requirement in Hawes was not a restriction of the right of expression, and was not challenged on First Amendment grounds. It was therefore not evaluated under the standards required for commercial speech restrictions after Central Hudson. Instead, because the right of access to the courts was not deemed a fundamental right that could be abridged only in support of a compelling government interest, the rule's discrimination between residents and nonresidents was evaluated for a rational basis. Id. at 144. The reasoning of Hawes is accordingly inapplicable in the First Amendment context. 16 In addition, the balance of interests involved with the District of Puerto Rico's bond requirement, and similar rules in other jurisdictions, see, e.g., id. at 143 n. 4, is dramatically different from the instant case. The bond in Hawes was not required of nonresidents wishing to engage in commercial expression, but rather of nonresidents wishing to hale Puerto Rico residents into the federal courts of that district, forcing the latter to incur significant litigation-related expenses. Where the resident defendant prevailed, the costs of litigation would ordinarily have been taxed against the nonresident plaintiff. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Because of the likelihood that funds would need to be collected from a nonresident plaintiff, the risk of harm from unenforceability was, accordingly, higher in Hawes. Conversely, the nature of the restriction was more narrowly tailored, insofar as the rule permitted the district court to waive the bond requirement when it would be so excessive as to preclude a plaintiff's right to sue. No such waiver is available under Article 24 to nonresident advertisers or their resident intermediaries.