Opinion ID: 799453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ACLU's First Amendment Challenge

Text: The ACLU filed this suit against Alvarez in her official capacity seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 barring her from enforcing the eavesdropping statute against audio recording that the organization plans to carry out in connection with its police accountability program. More specifically, the ACLU intends to implement a program of promoting police accountability by openly audio recording police officers without their consent when: (1) the officers are performing their public duties; (2) the officers are in public places; (3) the officers are speaking at a volume audible to the unassisted human ear; and (4) the manner of recording is otherwise lawful. The program will include, among other things, audiovisual recording of policing at expressive activity eventsprotests and demonstrationsin public fora in and around the Chicago area. The organization also plans to make audiovisual recordings of policing at expressive activities carried out by its members. The ACLU intends to publish these recordings online and through other forms of electronic media. The ACLU alleged that its planned audiovisual recording is protected under the First Amendment's speech, press, and petition clauses, but because of a credible fear of prosecution, it has not followed through on its program. The complaint asked for a declaratory judgment holding the eavesdropping statute unconstitutional as applied to the ACLU's planned recording and for a corresponding injunction barring the Cook County State's Attorney from enforcing the statute against the ACLU or its agents who carry out the recording. The ACLU also moved for a preliminary injunction. The State's Attorney moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the ACLU lacks standing and failed to state a claim of a First Amendment violation. The district court granted the motion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the complaint did not adequately allege a credible fear of prosecution and that the ACLU therefore lacked standing to sue. The dismissal was without prejudice, however, so the ACLU moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) to allow an amended complaint under Rules 15(a)(2) and 21. The proposed amended complaint addressed the standing defect the court had identified, adding two individual plaintiffsColleen Connell, the ACLU's Executive Director, and Allison Carter, the ACLU's Senior Field Managerand more detail about the threat of prosecution. The ACLU renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction. The State's Attorney opposed this second round of motions, and again the district court agreed. The judge held that although the ACLU had cured the limited standing deficiencies and now sufficiently alleg[ed] a threat of prosecution, the proposed amended complaint contained a different standing defect. Relying on Potts v. City of Lafayette, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir. 1997), the judge held that [t]he ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury because the First Amendment does not protect a right to audio record. The judge also held that the ACLU had no First Amendment injury because the police officers and civilians who would be recorded were not willing speakers. The judge viewed the ACLU's claim as an unprecedented expansion of the First Amendment and held that granting leave to amend would be futile because [t]he ACLU has not met its burden of showing standing to assert a First Amendment right or injury. The judge denied the motion to amend and thus declined to address the request for a preliminary injunction. This appeal followed.