Christian Action League of Minnesota v. Freeman

Background

Christian Action League of Minnesota, a nonprofit corporation, and its co-founder and president, Ann Redding, challenged subdivision 1(a)(1) of Minnesota’s harassment restraining order statute. The provision defines harassment to include repeated intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have, or are intended to have, a substantial adverse effect on another person’s safety, security, or privacy.

The plaintiffs and their agents had contacted businesses that advertised in City Pages and asked them to stop advertising there because the publication also carried advertisements for sexually oriented businesses. In March 2019, Redding and a Christian Action League agent sent postcards to the R. Leigh Frost Law firm, and someone also sent an email, asking the firm to stop advertising in City Pages. After the firm asked them to stop contacting it, another postcard was sent. Frost then petitioned for a temporary harassment restraining order against the Christian Action League and its agents. The order was later vacated after Frost and the Christian Action League reached a settlement. The complaint did not allege that Freeman knew about or participated in that proceeding, or that he prosecuted or threatened to prosecute the plaintiffs for violating the order.

The plaintiffs later filed this pre-enforcement challenge. They claimed that the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of speech and right of association, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s rule against vague laws. They sought declarations, an injunction preventing Freeman from enforcing or threatening to enforce the provision, and attorney fees and costs. Freeman moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Minnesota Attorney General intervened to defend the statute and adopted Freeman’s argument that the complaint failed to state a claim.

Standing

Article III standing is a threshold requirement for federal jurisdiction. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury.

The plaintiffs argued that they had been deterred from communicating with businesses because of the harassment restraining order statute. The court held that this claimed deterrence was not objectively reasonable. Under Minnesota decisions discussed by the court, the statute reaches constitutionally unprotected fighting words, true threats, and speech or conduct intended to substantially harm another person’s safety, security, or privacy. Conduct must also be objectively unreasonable, and the targeted person must have an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct substantially harmed safety, security, or privacy.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ past and planned communications did not meet that description. The communications requested that businesses stop advertising in City Pages, did not threaten Frost or her law firm, involved no physical contact or invasion of personal space, were sent to publicly advertised business addresses, and did not disclose sensitive information. The plaintiffs did not allege that they intended to engage in harassment or violate a harassment restraining order. Because their planned conduct was not prohibited by the statute, the court held that their decision to stop communicating did not establish an injury for standing purposes.

Mootness

The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over the as-applied claims because City Pages had permanently ceased publication while the motion was under consideration. The complaint focused on protesting businesses that advertised in City Pages, and the publication was the only one identified in the complaint. The court therefore found no live dispute involving the actual or threatened application of the statute to that particular speech.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the dispute fit the narrow exception for controversies capable of repetition but likely to evade review. Even if the plaintiffs might engage in future protests involving the statute, the court held that such a dispute would not necessarily be too short to receive timely judicial review. The plaintiffs’ earlier protest activity concerning City Pages had lasted nearly a decade.

Disposition

Because the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the complaint stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court granted Defendant Mike Freeman’s motion to dismiss and ordered that judgment be entered. The opinion did not decide the constitutional merits of the Minnesota harassment restraining order statute.