Court Opinion

ID: 9966188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 14:07:04.10259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:43.909578
License: Public Domain

SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office
of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor
approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.

   Viktoriya Usachenok v. State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury
                             (A-40-22) (086861)

Argued January 3, 2024 -- Decided May 6, 2024

RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court.

       In this appeal, the Court considers the constitutionality of a regulation that
applies to harassment and discrimination investigations in State workplaces. Part of
the regulation requires State investigators to “request” that anyone interviewed “not
discuss any aspect of the investigation with others.” N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j).

       In May 2016, plaintiff Viktoriya Usachenok filed an internal complaint with
the Department of Treasury claiming that her supervisor sexually harassed her and
subjected her to a hostile work environment. Consistent with the text of N.J.A.C.
4A:7-3.1(j) at the time, the EEO/AA investigator directed Usachenok not to discuss
the investigation with others and had her sign a form to acknowledge that directive.
After Usachenok asked her husband, an attorney, about whether to sign a particular
document related to the investigation, the investigator accused Usachenok of
violating the confidentiality directive and threatened she could be fired. Usachenok
filed a complaint that, among other claims, challenged the confidentiality directive.

       The version of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) then in effect included the following
language: “All persons interviewed, including witnesses, shall be directed not to
discuss any aspect of the investigation with others in light of the important privacy
interests of all concerned. Failure to comply with this confidentiality directive may
result in administrative and/or disciplinary action, up to and including termination.”

       While this appeal was pending in the Appellate Division, the Civil Service
Commission amended the regulation. The relevant portion of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j)
now provides that “the EEO/AA Officer/investigator shall request that all persons
interviewed, including witnesses, not discuss any aspect of the investigation with
others, unless there is a legitimate business reason to disclose such information.”

      The Appellate Division rejected Usachenok’s constitutional challenge to the
current regulation, focusing on the change from a directive to a permissive “request”
through the amendment. The Court granted certification. 253 N.J. 579 (2023).
                                          1
HELD: The State Constitution guarantees an affirmative right to speak freely. N.J.
Const. art. I, ¶ 6. The guarantee extends to victims of harassment and discrimination
who have a right to speak out about what happened to them. Although N.J.A.C.
4A:7-3.1(j) seeks to advance legitimate interests -- “to protect the integrity of the
investigation, minimize the risk of retaliation . . . , and protect the important privacy
interests of all concerned” -- it reaches too far in trying to achieve those aims and
chills constitutionally protected speech. The rule is overbroad under the State
Constitution, and the Court strikes the relevant part of the regulation.

1. New Jersey’s Constitution provides broader protection for free expression than
the Federal Constitution and practically all others in the nation. (pp. 12-13)

2. The overbreadth doctrine considers the extent of a law’s deterrent effect on
legitimate expression. A law is facially invalid on overbreadth grounds if the statute
prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate
sweep. The United States Supreme Court’s application of the overbreadth doctrine
in United States v. Stevens illustrates the principle. The Court found that the statute
challenged in that case created an offense “of alarming breadth” because, although it
purported to criminalize animal cruelty, the statute did not actually require “that the
depicted conduct be cruel,” such that hunting periodicals could run afoul of the law.
559 U.S. 460, 474-76 (2010). The Court explained that it “would not uphold an
unconstitutional statute based on the Government’s representation that it would use
the statute “to reach only ‘extreme’ cruelty,” and that it could not rewrite the statute
“to conform it to constitutional requirements.” Id. at 480-81. Because “the
presumptively impermissible applications of [the law] far outnumber[ed] any
permissible ones,” the Court held that the law was “substantially overbroad, and
therefore invalid under the First Amendment.” Id. at 481-82. (pp. 14-17)

3. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach, the “first step” in this appeal is to
examine the text of the regulation to construe its scope. See id. at 474. The critical
language in N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) has few, if any, limits. It directs state actors to ask
victims and witnesses not to speak with anyone about any aspect of any
investigation into harassment or discrimination. That request encompasses a great
deal of protected speech, and it has no time limit. One exception appears in the text
of the rule -- victims and witnesses can disclose information if “there is a legitimate
business reason to” do so -- but the regulation does not offer guidance about what
that means. And the regulation does not require that victims be told they are free to
decline to follow the request, that they can consult with an attorney about it, or that
there will be no repercussions if they exercise their protected right to free speech.
Although framed as a request, there is an inherent power imbalance between the
investigator who makes the request and the witness who hears it, with the result that
many employees will undoubtedly give up their right to speak freely. (pp. 17-20)

                                           2
4. Counsel for the Attorney General proposed revisions that would help address the
regulation’s broad scope, but the Court cannot expand and rewrite the final sentence
to render it constitutional. Id. at 481. The regulation is unconstitutionally
overbroad. The Court acknowledges the State’s good-faith representations that the
regulation can be narrowed, but it cannot rely on those representations to uphold the
rule. See id. at 480. The Court strikes the last sentence of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) on
overbreadth grounds based on the broad protections in the State Constitution. The
Court explains why its opinion in R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 185 N.J.
208 (2005), does not alter its analysis here. (pp. 20-22)

5. In striking part of the regulation, the Court does not question the principles the
regulation tries to foster. The concerns addressed by confidentiality are entirely
legitimate and are also important considerations in criminal and internal affairs
investigations. The Court stresses that nothing in its opinion should be construed to
limit requests for confidentiality by investigators in those settings. (pp. 22-23)

     REVERSED. The last sentence of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) is STRICKEN.
The matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, PIERRE-LOUIS, FASCIALE, and
NORIEGA join in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion. JUSTICE WAINER
APTER did not participate.

                                          3
       SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
             A-40 September Term 2022
                        086861

                Viktoriya Usachenok,

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

                          v.

                 State of New Jersey
                  Department of the
                Treasury, John Mayo,
                 Bulisa Sanders and
                Deirdre Webster Cobb,

              Defendants-Respondents.

        On certification to the Superior Court,
                  Appellate Division.

        Argued                     Decided
    January 3, 2024               May 6, 2024

Andrew Dwyer argued the cause for appellant (Smith
Eibeler, James M. Curran, and The Dwyer Law Firm,
attorneys; Christopher J. Eibeler, of counsel and on the
briefs, and Lisa A. Hernandez, Devin T. Russo, and
James M. Curran, on the briefs).

Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondents (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
General, attorney; Donna Arons, of counsel, and Adam
Robert Gibbons, Nicole Adams, Adam Marshall, and
Levi Klinger-Christiansen, Deputy Attorneys General, on
the briefs).

                           1
               Julie A. Murray (American Civil Liberties Union
               Foundation) of the District of Columbia and New York
               bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for amici
               curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and
               American Civil Liberties Union (American Civil
               Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, and American
               Civil Liberties Union Foundation, attorneys; Alexander
               Shalom, Jeanne LoCicero, Julie A. Murray, and Gillian
               Thomas (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation) of
               the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).

        CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court.

      In this appeal, we consider the constitutionality of a regulation that

applies to harassment and discrimination investigations in State workplaces.

Part of the regulation requires State investigators to “request” that anyone

interviewed “not discuss any aspect of the investigation with others.” N.J.A.C.

4A:7-3.1(j).

      The regulation’s request for confidentiality has a broad sweep.

Investigators must ask all victims and witnesses who are interviewed not to

speak to others -- in other words, not to a spouse, an attorney, or the public.

And the regulation has no time limit; the request extends indefinitely, even

after an investigation has ended.

      An exception in the regulation allows victims and witnesses to disclose

information if “there is a legitimate business reason to” do so. Ibid. But the

phrase is not defined, and a reasonable person would find it difficult to

                                        2
understand what the vague language means. In addition, investigators are not

required to tell victims and witnesses that they are free to disregard the State’s

request.

      In this case, an employee of the Department of Treasury lodged an

internal complaint that her manager sexually harassed her at work.

Investigators interviewed her and, consistent with the version of the regulation

then in effect, directed her not to discuss the investigation with anyone.

      The Civil Service Commission (CSC) amended the regulation afterward.

It now calls on investigators to “request,” not “direct,” that victims and

witnesses remain silent about all aspects of the investigation. Ibid. Plaintiff’s

complaint in this appeal seeks a declaratory judgment that the current

regulation is unconstitutional.

      The State Constitution guarantees an affirmative right to speak freely

that is broader than the protections in the First Amendment. Compare

N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 6, with U.S. Const. amend. I. The guarantee extends to

victims of harassment and discrimination who have a right to speak out about

what happened to them.

      Although the regulation seeks to advance legitimate interests -- “to

protect the integrity of the investigation, minimize the risk of retaliation . . . ,

and protect the important privacy interests of all concerned,” N.J.A.C. 4A:7-

                                          3
3.1(j), it reaches too far in trying to achieve those aims and chills

constitutionally protected speech. We therefore hold that the rule is overbroad

under the State Constitution. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the

Appellate Division and strike the relevant part of the regulation.

                                         I.

      To recount the facts, we rely on the assertions in plaintiff Viktoriya

Usachenok’s fourth amended complaint but make no findings of fact.

      In May 2016, Usachenok filed an internal complaint with the Equal

Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) office in the

Department of Treasury. She claimed her supervisor John Mayo sexually

harassed her and subjected her to a hostile work environment.

      Bulisa Sanders, an EEO/AA investigator, and her supervisor, Deirdre

Webster Cobb, met with Usachenok to investigate the complaint. At the

meeting, Usachenok stated that Mayo made sexual advances toward her, gave

her unwanted gifts and love letters, and engaged in other inappropriate

behavior. Consistent with the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) (the “regulation” or

“paragraph (j)”) at the time, Sanders directed Usachenok not to discuss the

investigation with others and had her sign a form to acknowledge the

confidentiality directive. Sanders also advised Usachenok that she could be

disciplined if she violated the directive.

                                         4
      According to Usachenok, at a meeting in June 2016, Sanders asked her

to sign a statement the investigators had prepared that summarized her

allegations. After reading the statement, Usachenok said it needed to be

changed “to accurately reflect her complaints.” When Sanders declined to

make the changes, Usachenok asked if she could call her husband. Her

husband, an attorney, advised her not to sign the document. According to

Usachenok, Sanders then accused her of violating the confidentiality directive

and threatened that she could be fired.

      In late August 2016, Usachenok received a letter from another Treasury

investigator that allegedly confirmed some but not all of her claims against

Mayo.

      Usachenok filed a complaint against the Department of Treasury, Mayo,

Sanders, and Cobb on July 21, 2017. The fourth amended complaint alleged a

hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination, among other claims.

Relevant to this appeal, the complaint also challenged the confidentiality

directive in N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j).

      On October 29, 2018, Usachenok filed an order to show cause and

sought an order declaring the confidentiality directive of paragraph (j) null and

void. Because the allegation challenged the validity of a rule promulgated by a

state agency, the State moved to transfer that part of the amended complaint to

                                          5
the Appellate Division, pursuant to Rules 1:13-4 and 2:2-3(a). The trial court

granted the request.

                                        II.

        To provide context for what follows, we outline the regulation and its

history here.

        The regulation stems from Executive Order No. 106, which Governor

Christine Todd Whitman issued in 1999. Exec. Order No. 106 (Dec. 17, 1999),

32 N.J.R. 139(a) (Jan. 18, 2000). The Executive Order stressed the importance

of prohibiting discrimination, harassment, or hostile environments in the

workplace. Ibid. It also emphasized the need for model procedures to handle

internal complaints. Ibid. To achieve those aims, the Governor put into effect

a policy submitted by the Department of Personnel. Ibid.

        The Executive Order led to various changes to N.J.A.C. 4A:7. Among

other amendments, N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(i) was added. It stated that, “[t]o the

extent practical and appropriate under the circumstances, confidentiality shall

be maintained throughout the investigatory process.” 34 N.J.R. 261(a) (Jan. 7,

2002). The regulation added that “[a]ll persons interviewed shall be directed

not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with others” and that “[f]ailure to

comply with this confidentiality directive may result in disciplinary action.”

Ibid.

                                         6
      In 2007, those confidentiality requirements were re-codified at N.J.A.C.

4A:7-3.1(j) with minor changes. See 39 N.J.R. 3499(a) (Aug. 20, 2007). At

the time, paragraph (j) continued to mandate confidentiality and warn of

disciplinary action. It read in full as follows:

            All complaints and investigations shall be handled, to
            the extent possible, in a manner that will protect the
            privacy interests of those involved. To the extent
            practical and appropriate under the circumstances,
            confidentiality shall be maintained throughout the
            investigatory process. In the course of an investigation,
            it may be necessary to discuss the claims with the
            person(s) against whom the complaint was filed and
            other persons who may have relevant knowledge or
            who have a legitimate need to know about the matter.
            All persons interviewed, including witnesses, shall be
            directed not to discuss any aspect of the investigation
            with others in light of the important privacy interests of
            all concerned.        Failure to comply with this
            confidentiality directive may result in administrative
            and/or disciplinary action, up to and including
            termination of employment.

            [N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) (2007) (emphases added).]

      In 2019, while this appeal was pending, the CSC proposed to amend

paragraph (j). 51 N.J.R. 1311(a) (Aug. 19, 2019). The amendment, adopted in

March 2020, made two notable changes: (1) it removed language that

mandated witnesses “be directed” not to speak with others and instead

mandated that they be “request[ed]” not to do so; and (2) it eliminated the

                                         7
rule’s last sentence, which threatened disciplinary action. 52 N.J.R. 887(a)

(Apr. 20, 2020). In proposing the change, the CSC stated investigators would

“advise” people interviewed during an investigation “why it is important not to

disclose any aspect of the investigation to other persons without a legitimate

and substantial business justification.” 51 N.J.R. 1311(a). The proposal also

explained that warning of “the imposition of a penalty could have a chilling

effect on potential claimants.” Ibid.

      Paragraph (j) now reads as follows:

            All complaints and investigations shall be handled, to
            the extent possible, in a manner that will protect the
            privacy interests of those involved. To the extent
            practical and appropriate under the circumstances,
            confidentiality shall be maintained throughout the
            investigative process.[1]      In the course of an
            investigation, it may be necessary to discuss the claims
            with the person(s) against whom the complaint was
            filed and other persons who may have relevant
            knowledge or who have a legitimate need to know
            about the matter. In order to protect the integrity of the
            investigation, minimize the risk of retaliation against
            the individuals participating in the investigative
            process, and protect the important privacy interests of

1
   Because the second sentence of paragraph (j) is directed to the agency and
its personnel, as opposed to victims and witnesses, we do not address it
further. We also accept the State’s representation that other sections of the
regulation that discuss disciplinary action generally do not apply to paragraph
(j). See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 4A:7.31(d) and (k). For similar reasons, we do not
adopt the argument that the general language in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(1)
(failure to perform duties), (2) (insubordination), or (12) (other sufficient
cause) provides a basis for disciplinary action with regard to paragraph (j).
                                         8
            all concerned, the EEO/AA Officer/investigator shall
            request that all persons interviewed, including
            witnesses, not discuss any aspect of the investigation
            with others, unless there is a legitimate business reason
            to disclose such information.

            [N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j) (effective Apr. 20, 2020)
            (emphasis added).]

                                        III.

      The Appellate Division rejected Usachenok’s constitutional challenge to

the current regulation.

      The appellate court focused on the following language in paragraph (j):

“the EEO/AA Officer/investigator shall request that all persons interviewed,

including witnesses, not discuss any aspect of the investigation.” (emphasis

added). The court found that “the plain language . . . does not restrict speech

and does not constitute an improper prior restraint of speech.”

      At the same time, the Appellate Division recognized that the word

“request” may be considered a command depending upon the context in which

it is used. Citing the CSC’s amendment to the regulation -- which replaced the

term “direct[]” with “request” -- the court observed that “the intent . . . was to

eliminate a confidentiality requirement and its potential chilling effect . . . and

replace[] it with a permissive ‘request.’” The appellate court explained that

the exception in the regulation -- for when “there is a legitimate business

                                         9
reason to disclose . . . information” -- further supports the permissive nature of

the request.

        The Appellate Division also concluded that the amended regulation did

not violate the public policies underlying the Law Against Discrimination

(LAD). In doing so, the court stressed the important values behind a request

for confidentiality: to “promote[] a fair investigatory process that protects

both the accuser and the accused while respecting the free-speech rights of

all.”

        The Appellate Division ultimately remanded the case to the trial court

and directed it to enter an order dismissing Usachenok’s challenge to the

regulation.

        We granted Usachenok’s petition for certification. 253 N.J. 579 (2023).

We also granted leave to participate as a friend of the Court to the American

Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the American Civil Liberties Union

(jointly, the ACLU).

                                        IV.

        Usachenok contends the Appellate Division did not analyze whether the

regulation has a chilling effect on an employee’s right to free speech. She

maintains the State’s intent in drafting the amendment does not answer that

critical question, and that paragraph (j) operates as an unconstitutional restraint

                                        10
on speech. Usachenok also argues the current regulation is overbroad and

vague, and that it violates the LAD. In addition, citing Stericycle, Inc. &

Teamsters Local 628, 372 N.L.R.B. No. 113 (2023), Usachenok asks this Court

to adopt a balancing test to determine the validity of confidentiality

regulations.

      The State argues that “because the request is truly a request, neither the

State nor Federal Constitution is implicated.” Both the language of the

regulation and its context, according to the State, make clear that no adverse

consequences follow from declining the request. The State asserts that the

amendment is a permissible expression of the government’s viewpoint that

confidentiality will protect the integrity of an investigation. The State

therefore maintains there is no basis to invalidate the regulation or promulgate

a new test. In addition, the State submits that nothing in the State Constitution

or the LAD calls for a different outcome.

      The ACLU stresses that the New Jersey Constitution provides broader

protection than the First Amendment and affords an independent ground to

uphold Usachenok’s constitutional claim. Merely because the regulation

“requests” confidentiality, the ACLU submits, does not insulate it from

constitutional scrutiny. The ACLU also asks the Court to adopt its own

balancing standard for public-employee speech claims.

                                       11
      We granted Usachenok’s motion to expand the record. 252 N.J. 379

(2022). Because we do not rely on the additional information submitted, we

do not reference the parties’ arguments relating to it.

                                        V.

      Usachenok contends that the amended regulation violates her right to

speak freely under the State Constitution. We review constitutional challenges

to statutes and regulations de novo. See State v. Hill, 256 N.J. 266, 280 (2024)

(statute); Ran-Dav’s Cnty. Kosher, Inc. v. State, 129 N.J. 141, 167 (1992)

(regulation). And we construe “regulation[s] to render [them] constitutional if

[they are] reasonably susceptible to such a construction.” Karins v. City of

Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 546 (1998).

                                        A.

      The State Constitution provides broader protection for free expression

than the Federal Constitution does.

      The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the

states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, directs that

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S.

Const. amend. I; Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., 585 U.S.

878, 891-92 (2018).

                                        12
      New Jersey’s Constitution “guarantees a broad affirmative right to free

speech.” Dublirer v. 2000 Linwood Ave. Owners, Inc., 220 N.J. 71, 78 (2014).

Article I, Paragraph 6 provides that “[e]very person may freely speak, write

and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of

that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or

of the press.” N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 6. That language has been described as

“broader than practically all others in the nation.” Green Party v. Hartz

Mountain Indus., Inc., 164 N.J. 127, 145 (2000).

      The “State Constitution’s free speech clause is generally interpreted as

co-extensive with the First Amendment.” E & J Equities, LLC v. Bd. of

Adjustment of Franklin, 226 N.J. 549, 568 (2016) (quoting Township of

Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 176 (1999)). As a result, principles of

federal constitutional law, in general, help guide our analysis. Ibid.

      At the same time, we have found that the New Jersey Constitution

affords greater protection than federal law in certain areas relating to free

speech. See, e.g., Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan, 210

N.J. 482, 493 (2012) (quoting N.J. Coalition Against War in the Middle East v.

J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 353 (1994) (private action in addition to

state action); Dublirer, 220 N.J. at 79 (same); W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229,

242 (2012) (defamation).

                                        13
                                        B.

      We focus on paragraph (j) to assess Usachenok’s facial constitutional

challenge. Usachenok contends the regulation is unconstitutionally overbroad.

      “Overbroad laws ‘may deter or “chill” constitutionally protected

speech[.]’” United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 769-70 (2023) (quoting

Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003)); Hill, 256 N.J. at 282-83. In

those situations, “would-be speakers [may] remain silent,” and “society”

would then “lose their contributions to the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” Hansen,

599 U.S. at 770 (quoting Hicks, 539 U.S. at 119). The overbreadth doctrine

thus considers the extent of a law’s “deterrent effect on legitimate expression.”

State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 582 (1997) (internal quotation omitted).

      As this Court recently observed, “[o]verbreadth is unlike a typical facial

challenge.” Hill, 256 N.J. at 283. “[I]t does not require a challenger to

‘establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [a statute] would be

valid.’” Ibid. (quoting Hansen, 599 U.S. at 769). Courts may find that a law is

facially invalid on overbreadth grounds “[i]f the challenger demonstrates that

the statute ‘prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech’ relative to its

‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” Hansen, 599 U.S. at 770 (quoting United States v.

Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292 (2008)); accord Hill, 256 N.J. at 283; United

States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010).

                                        14
      When a court holds a law facially unconstitutional under the overbreadth

doctrine, all enforcement of the law is suspended. Hicks, 539 U.S. at 119. To

justify that outcome, the “law’s unconstitutional applications must be realistic,

not fanciful,” and they “must be substantially disproportionate to the statute’s

lawful sweep.” Hansen, 599 U.S. at 770; Hill, 256 N.J. at 283.

      The United States Supreme Court’s application of the overbreadth

doctrine in Stevens illustrates the principle. In that case, the Court reviewed a

federal law that made it a crime to “create[], sell[], or possess[] a depiction of

animal cruelty,” if done for “commercial gain.” 559 U.S. at 464-65 (citing 18

U.S.C. § 48(a)). The statute defined “depiction of animal cruelty” as any

depiction “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated,

tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct” violated federal law or a law in

the state where “the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took

place.” Id. at 465 n.1. The law’s primary intent, based on the legislative

history, was to address “crush videos” that depicted “the intentional torture and

killing of helpless animals.” Id. at 465.

      The allegations in Stevens involved depictions of animal fighting. Id. at

466. The defendant argued the indictment was facially invalid under the First

Amendment and moved to dismiss the charges. Id. at 467. The Supreme Court

agreed. Id. at 482.

                                        15
      The Court began its analysis by construing the law’s text. Id. at 474. As

the Court explained, “it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches

too far without first knowing what the statute covers.” Ibid. (quoting

Williams, 553 U.S. at 293). And when reading the law, the Court observed that

it created an offense “of alarming breadth.” Ibid.

      Although the law purported to criminalize animal cruelty, “nowhere”

does the statute “require[] that the depicted conduct be cruel.” Ibid. In

addition, although the text’s reference to intentionally maiming, mutilating,

and torturing “convey[ed] cruelty,” wounding and killing did not. Ibid. The

Court described multiple examples of hunting and livestock slaughter that

were illegal in only some parts of the country, yet the statute’s broad language

prohibited their depiction everywhere. Id. at 474-77. Hunting periodicals and

television programs could likewise run afoul of the law. Id. at 476.

      The Court declined to accept the Government’s representation that it

would use the statute “to reach only ‘extreme’ cruelty.” Id. at 480. It

explained it “would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the

Government promised to use it responsibly.” Ibid. Nor could the Court

rewrite the statute “to conform it to constitutional requirements.” Id. at 481

(quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 884-85 (1997)). Because “the

presumptively impermissible applications of [the law] far outnumber[ed] any

                                       16
permissible ones,” the Court held that the law was “substantially overbroad,

and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.” Id. at 481-82.

                                       VI.

                                        A.

      Consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach, the “first step” in this

appeal is to examine the text of the regulation to construe its scope. See id. at

474. In an overbreadth challenge, the proper focus belongs on “what the [law]

covers,” not what regulators or legislators may have intended it to cover. See

id. at 465, 474.

      We therefore begin with the critical language in paragraph (j), which is

rather broad: “the EEO/AA Officer/investigator shall request that all persons

interviewed, including witnesses, not discuss any aspect of the investigation

with others.” N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j).

      The section has few, if any, limits. It directs state actors to ask victims

and witnesses to give up their constitutionally protected right to free speech. It

commands investigators to request complete confidentiality in every

investigation. And it extends to all witnesses without exception. Taken at face

value, victims and witnesses are asked not to speak with their spouse or an

                                        17
attorney. Likewise, they may reasonably understand that they are being asked

not to contact other government agencies or law enforcement officials. 2

      In short, the request is as simple as it is wide-ranging: not to speak with

anyone about any aspect of any investigation into harassment or

discrimination. That request encompasses a great deal of protected speech.

      As described in the last sentence of paragraph (j), the request also has no

time limit. It appears to extend indefinitely, even beyond the end of an

investigation.

      One exception appears in the text of the rule: victims and witnesses can

disclose information if “there is a legitimate business reason to” do so. Ibid.

The regulation does not define the phrase or offer guidance about what it

2
  The State submits that employees can file a lawsuit or a complaint with the
Division on Civil Rights consistent with N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(h). That section
provides that employees cannot be retaliated against or subjected to “adverse
employment consequences” for “bringing a complaint, providing information
for an investigation, or testifying in any proceeding under this policy.”
Paragraph (d) also states that “[a] person who wishes to take action about
prohibited sexual physical contact can file a criminal complaint with law
enforcement of the municipality where the incident occurred.” Id. at (d). But
investigators are not required to convey that information, and it is unclear how
victims and witnesses unfamiliar with the regulation would know about those
sections.

        More generally, the State suggests that any employee who is unsure of
the regulation’s sweep can ask the investigator to clarify it. That approach
would shift the onus onto victims and witnesses rather than keep the focus
where it belongs -- on the request investigators are required to make. See id.
at (j).
                                        18
means, and any reasonable person would find it difficult to understand the

rule’s vague language.

      What the regulation leaves out is also significant. It does not require

that victims be told they are free to decline to follow the request. They are not

told they can consult with an attorney about it. Nor are they told there will be

no repercussions if they exercise their protected right to free speech.

      Viewed as a whole, the unadorned language of the regulation extends

quite broadly. The State, however, correctly points out that paragraph (j) no

longer directs victims and witnesses not to speak about investigations; it

instead requests them not to. Yet the way the request must be conveyed

exacerbates its potential to chill protected speech.

      There is an inherent power imbalance here between the investigator who

makes the request and the witness who hears it. Investigators speak on behalf

of an agency of the State. Beyond that, victims and witnesses dependent on

their employer can reasonably be concerned they may face consequences if

they fail to comply. Cf. Stericycle, 372 N.L.R.B. No. 113, at *2 (assessing

facial challenges to employer work rules and noting that “[b]ecause employees

are typically (and understandably) anxious to avoid discharge or discipline,

they are reasonably inclined both to construe an ambiguous work rule to

prohibit statutorily protected activities and to avoid the risk of violating the

                                        19
rule by engaging in such activity”); NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.

575, 617 (1969) (noting, in the labor relations setting, that balancing an

employer’s right of expression and the employees’ equal right to associate

freely “must take into account the economic dependence of the employees on

their employers”). As a result, many employees will undoubtedly give up their

right to speak freely and will remain silent.

      At oral argument, counsel for the Attorney General stated that,

consistent with the intent of the regulation, investigators “should explain to the

witness that they are not required to” follow the request. Counsel also did not

object to the Court including in an opinion that the “request should be

accompanied by . . . some language that makes it clear that [1] it is not

mandatory and that [2] there [will be] no discipline.”

      Revisions to the regulation of that type would help address its broad

sweep. But we cannot expand and rewrite the final sentence of the regulation

to render it constitutional. Stevens, 559 U.S. at 481. Nor would changes of

the sort proposed be a candidate for judicial surgery. To save an otherwise

unconstitutional rule, courts on occasion can “excise a constitutional defect or

engraft a needed meaning” to ensure a statute’s survival. Hamilton

Amusement Ctr. v. Verniero, 156 N.J. 254, 280 (1998) (quoting Right to

Choose v. Byrne, 91 N.J. 287, 311 (1982)); accord State v. Natale, 184 N.J.

                                        20
458, 485 (2005). Adding substantial language to the regulation here, though,

would extend beyond the limits of judicial surgery.

      We therefore hold that the regulation is unconstitutionally overbroad. Its

breadth encompasses a significant amount of protected speech, and its

consequences are real, “not fanciful.” See Hansen, 599 U.S. at 770. The

scope of the rule will cause countless victims and witnesses to surrender their

protected right to speak freely about harassment and discrimination. Although

we acknowledge the State’s good-faith representations that the regulation can

be narrowed, we cannot rely on them to uphold the rule. See Stevens, 559

U.S. at 480. We therefore strike the last sentence of paragraph (j) on

overbreadth grounds based on the broad protections in the State Constitution. 3

                                       B.

      The Court’s opinion in R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 185 N.J.

208 (2005), does not alter the above analysis. In that case, the Court

invalidated the confidentiality provisions of Rule 1:20-9, which “mandate[d]

that a grievance filed against an attorney remain[] confidential until a formal

3
  For that reason, we do not rely on or discuss the standards the parties cite
from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), or Stericycle, 372
N.L.R.B. No. 113. Nor do we reach Usachenok’s argument based on the anti-
retaliation provisions of the LAD.

                                       21
complaint is filed.” Id. at 211. 4 The confidentiality rule had five exceptions,

none of which applied to the case. Ibid.

      In striking the rule’s broad requirement of confidentiality on First

Amendment grounds, the Court observed that ethics committees can still

“recommend that the grievant maintain the confidentiality of the process

during the investigatory stage and the grievant can agree to do so when it is in

his or her interest.” Id. at 229 (emphasis added). Paragraph (j) does not

convey the latter point. The Court in R.M. also noted that if ethics

investigators “can establish a compelling need for secrecy based on the

specific and articulable facts of a case, [they] can seek an appropriate order

requiring confidentiality.” Ibid.

                                          C.

      In striking part of the regulation, we do not question the principles it

tries to foster: “to protect the integrity of the investigation, minimize the risk

of retaliation . . . , and protect the important privacy interests of all

concerned.” N.J.A.C. 4A:7-3.1(j).

      Confidentiality protects the privacy interests of all involved, particularly

at a stage when allegations have yet to be proven. It also protects the integrity

4
  The current version of the Rule states that grievants may comment publicly
about “the disciplinary process, the filing and content of the grievance, and the
result.” R. 1:20-9(b). Respondents have the right to reply publicly. Ibid.
                                        22
of an investigation. Among other benefits, it prevents witnesses from

coordinating their stories either in an innocent or nefarious way.

Confidentiality may also encourage reluctant witnesses to speak. And it can

minimize the risk of retaliation during or after an investigation.

      Those interests and concerns are entirely legitimate and are also

important considerations in criminal and internal affairs investigations. See N.

Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, 229 N.J. 541, 579 (2017).

We do not address those types of investigations here, and nothing in this

opinion should be construed to limit requests for confidentiality by

investigators in those settings.

      State actors can express the government’s viewpoint. As the United

States Supreme Court observed in Matal v. Tam,

            [t]he First Amendment prohibits Congress and other
            government entities and actors from “abridging the
            freedom of speech”; the First Amendment does not say
            that Congress and other government entities must
            abridge their own ability to speak freely. . . .

            . . . . When a government entity embarks on a course
            of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and
            rejects others. The Free Speech Clause does not require
            government to maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its
            officers and employees speak about [a course of
            action].

            [582 U.S. 218, 234 (2017).]

                                        23
As a result, state investigators can explain the benefits of confidentiality to

victims and witnesses in investigations tied to the regulation. And victims, in

turn, have the right to disagree and speak freely.

      To be clear, the challenge here is not over the State’s legitimate

concerns. It is about how the current regulation sought to promote them.

                                       VII.

      For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the judgment of the

Appellate Division and strike the last sentence of paragraph (j) on overbreadth

grounds under the State Constitution. We remand to the trial court for further

proceedings relating to the pending complaint.

    JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, PIERRE-LOUIS, FASCIALE, and
NORIEGA join in CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER’s opinion. JUSTICE WAINER
APTER did not participate.

                                        24