League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale v. City of Cupertino

Background

The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale brought a facial challenge to Cupertino Ordinance 21-2222, codified in chapter 2.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. A facial challenge argues that a law is invalid in general, rather than only as applied to a particular set of facts.

The ordinance is a lobbying registration and disclosure law. It requires defined lobbyists to register with the City Clerk, pay annual registration fees, and disclose detailed information. It also provides fines and lobbying debarment for violations. The ordinance identifies three types of lobbyists: contract lobbyists paid to lobby for a client; business or organizational lobbyists whose paid employees or officers lobby at least ten hours in a year; and expenditure lobbyists who spend at least $5,000 in a year on advertising or public-relations campaigns intended to persuade others to lobby the government.

The League claimed that the ordinance violated the free-speech and petition clauses of the federal and California constitutions. It alleged that the ordinance was overbroad, speaker-based, and content-based, and that its registration and reporting requirements chilled protected speech, assembly, and petitioning. Cupertino moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that the League had standing to challenge the ordinance provisions concerning business or organizational lobbyists and expenditure lobbyists. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true at this stage, the court found that the League sufficiently alleged an injury to its organizational interests and a realistic danger of direct injury from the ordinance’s operation or enforcement.

Analysis

The court applied the standards governing facial overbreadth challenges. Such a challenge may proceed only when a substantial number of a law’s applications are unconstitutional compared with the law’s legitimate scope. The court described overbreadth as a narrow remedy to be used sparingly and only when the law’s overly broad reach creates a realistic danger that protected speech will be significantly compromised.

The court rejected the League’s argument that strict scrutiny applied. It reasoned that the ordinance does not directly control who may speak or what speakers may say. Instead, it imposes registration and disclosure requirements. Relying on decisions concerning similar lobbying and disclosure laws, the court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a substantial relationship between disclosure requirements and a sufficiently important government interest.

The court found that Cupertino had an important government interest in informing the public about people who seek to influence local government action through lobbying and in promoting transparency and public confidence in government decision-making. It also found that the ordinance was sufficiently related to that interest. The ordinance did not limit the amount of lobbying or spending, and the court found that it did not restrict speech based on the speaker or the content of the speech.

The court also noted exemptions for media activity conducted in the ordinary course of news gathering or editorial work and for communications limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for public city meetings when those communications are public records. The court concluded that the challenged provisions satisfied exacting scrutiny and were not facially overbroad. Therefore, the League failed to state a facial challenge to the ordinance.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted Cupertino’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The League was permitted to file an amended complaint complying with the order by June 2, 2023. The order stated that, if no amended complaint was filed, the court would dismiss the matter with prejudice.