20-664-cv
Decided: August 04, 2023
Havens v. James In the United States Court of Appeals FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUGUST TERM 2020 No. 20-664-cv JIM HAVENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
O/B/O ROC LOVE WILL END ABORTION, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LETITIA A. JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
CITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees.
…
CONCLUSION A person who is not a named party to an
injunction is bound by the injunction only when legally identified with an
enjoined party or when aiding and abetting an enjoined party’s violation of the
injunction. The allegations in Havens’s complaint do not establish that he
meets this standard. For that reason, the complaint states a claim for
declaratory relief that the defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Arcara
Injunction against Havens and ROC lacked a legal basis. We reverse the judgment
of the district court insofar as it dismissed Havens’s complaint and vacate the
judgment insofar as it denied Havens’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Havens
v. James (Thomas More Society Summary)
In 2017, Jim Havens began sidewalk counseling near the
Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York and formed the organization
ROC Love Will End Abortion (“ROC”). Between 2017 and 2018, security guards at
the Rochester Planned Parenthood told Jim he was required to observe a 15-foot
buffer zone on the public sidewalk outside the facility. This buffer zone was
created in 2005 by the “Arcara Injunction,” a court order only pertaining to a
completely separate and unrelated group of pro-life advocates.
Jim rightly believed this injunction did not apply to him
or ROC. So, too, did Rochester Police— initially—but soon reversed and verbally
informed Jim and ROC that they must comply with the buffer zone while sidewalk
counseling. Thomas More Society came to Jim’s defense and communicated to the
City of Rochester that the “Arcara Injunction” buffer zone did not apply to Jim
and ROC—and the City of Rochester agreed.
But soon after, the New York State Attorney General entered
the fray—targeting Jim and ROC to unjustly enforce the buffer zone against
them. In April 2019, Rochester Police circulated a letter to Jim and his group
of sidewalk counselors, threatening arrest if they were to violate the buffer
zone. To protect Jim’s rights from unjust threats of prosecution by the NY
Attorney General and the City of Rochester, Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit
in July 2019 on Jim and ROC’s behalf. The lawsuit sought an injunction against
the NY Attorney General and Rochester’s threats, and to clarify that Jim and
ROC were not, in fact, bound by the “Arcara Injunction.”
It is long-standing precedent—and common sense—that a court
cannot make a decree which will bind any person even when they are not a party
to it. Yet, the district court sided with the NY Attorney General and Rochester
by erroneously determining that Jim was bound by the terms of the “Arcara
Injunction.” The district court then denied Jim’s request for an injunction and
dismissed the case with prejudice.
Jim was not a party to the “Arcara Injunction” or legally
identified with any of the parties named on the court order—nor were any of his
fellow ROC Love Will End Abortion sidewalk advocates. NY Attorney General
Letitia James attempted to stretch and reinterpret the law beyond any semblance
of reason in order to shut down pro-life speech—violating the constitutional
rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors in the process.
Thomas More Society appealed the district court’s ruling to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After years of
waiting for a decision, the 2nd Circuit vindicated Jim’s rights in August 2023.
The Court reversed the district court and stated: “We hold that a person who is
not a named party to an injunction and who is not legally identified with a
named party is bound by the injunction only from acting for the benefit of, or
to assist, a named party in violating the injunction.” Jim did not act for the
benefit or assist any of those named parties, and the Court agreed—finding
that, “[a]ccording to the allegations in his complaint, Havens did not so act.”
The case has now been sent back to the district court, to be reconsidered in
light of the 2nd Circuit’s opinion
No comments:
Post a Comment