Brownfield v. Bonta
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-09878
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brownfield v. Bonta, Judge Davila denied a temporary restraining order against California’s recording law because plaintiffs did not show significant irreparable harm.
Plaintiffs Kirk Booth, David Brownfield, and Wynette Sills were denied temporary emergency relief, and the parties were required to brief whether plaintiffs have Article III standing. The order did not determine the law’s ultimate validity.
What happened
In Brownfield v. Bonta, plaintiffs Kirk Booth, David Brownfield, and Wynette Sills asked the court to temporarily block a California law regulating recordings near reproductive health facilities. They argued the law would discourage constitutionally protected speech and pointed to its exception for members of the news media.
The court denied the temporary restraining order. It said the plaintiffs had not shown a significant threat of lasting harm because the law applies only when someone records with the specific intent to intimidate a person from obtaining or providing abortion services. The court noted that the plaintiffs said they record encounters to protect themselves and document unusual or threatening incidents, conduct the statute does not criminalize.
Judge Davila also ordered both sides to submit briefing on whether the plaintiffs have the constitutional right to bring their claims in federal court. The order did not decide whether the law is constitutional or state a disposition of the request for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Brownfield v. Bonta · No. 5:21-cv-09878
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 23, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Kirk Booth, David Brownfield, and Wynette Sills sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Assembly Bill 1356 from taking effect. The law amended California Penal Code section 423.5. It makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally record a reproductive health services patient, provider, or assistant within 100 feet of a facility’s entrance, without that person’s consent, when the person recording specifically intends to intimidate the other person from becoming or remaining a patient, provider, or assistant, and the recording causes intimidation. It also prohibits intentionally distributing such a recording when the distributor knows it was obtained unlawfully and has the same specific intent.
The amendments exclude specified newspaper, magazine, periodical, press-association, wire-service, radio, and television news personnel. Plaintiffs argued that the law would chill constitutionally protected speech and emphasized the media exception as evidence that the law was aimed at pro-life activists. They said they record encounters outside abortion clinics while leafleting and counseling in order to document unusual or threatening incidents and protect themselves from hostile interactions.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions use the same general standard. A party seeking either remedy must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest. For a temporary restraining order, the party must show a significant threat of irreparable injury.
The court found that plaintiffs failed to make that showing. Even assuming that taking photographs or videos outside an abortion clinic could constitute speech protected by the First Amendment, the court was unclear how the law would affect plaintiffs’ ability to record hostile encounters. The court read the law as applying only to recordings made with the specific intent to intimidate someone from obtaining an abortion or providing abortion services. Because plaintiffs said they record to protect themselves from hostile interactions, the court concluded that their stated activities were not criminalized by the statute and therefore were not chilled by it.
Ruling and further proceedings
The court DENIED plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. It also ordered the parties to submit simultaneous briefs of no more than fifteen pages addressing whether plaintiffs have Article III standing, meaning a sufficient personal stake required to bring a claim in federal court. The briefing was due January 17, 2022.
The opinion did not decide the law’s ultimate constitutionality, and it did not state a disposition of plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.