From Zhou v. Breed, decided Friday by the Ninth Circuit (Judges John Owens and Michelle Friedland, and visiting Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs):
Appellants allege that both [S.F. Mayor London] Breed and Clear Channel violated their First Amendment right to free speech. To the extent that Appellants argue that Breed, or any public official, violated their First Amendment rights simply by speaking critically of a billboard or calling for its removal, that theory is squarely foreclosed by precedent.
We have previously joined a "host of other circuits" in holding that "public officials may criticize practices that they would have no constitutional ability to regulate, so long as there is no actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction." Am. Fam. Ass'n, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2002); see also id. ("[L]etters which encouraged but did not threaten or intimidate landowner to terminate lease with billboard owner did not violate billboard owner's First Amendment rights." (citing R.C. Maxwell Co. v. Borough of New Hope (3d Cir. 1984))). Appellants have not alleged that, in criticizing one of Appellants' billboards, Breed or any public official made any threats of government sanction against Zhou, AAFPAC, Clear Channel, Outfront Media, Inc. , or anyone.
Appellants' argument that their First Amendment rights were violated when Clear Channel, a private company, removed one of their billboards also fails. "A threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action." We "start with the presumption that private conduct does not constitute governmental action." Appellants do not allege any facts or put forward any plausible legal theory that would support treating Clear Channel as a state actor in this case.
The mere fact that Breed or other public officials criticized a billboard or called for its removal, without coercion or threat of government sanction, does not make that billboard's subsequent removal by a private party state action. See also Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan (1999) ("Action taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the State is not state action."). Nor does the fact that companies that own billboards might be subject to some government regulations convert Clear Channel's decision to take down the billboard following public officials' criticism into state action. See Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019) ("Put simply, being regulated by the State does not make one a state actor."); Mathis v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (9th Cir. 1989) ("[T]hat PG & E is a public utility subject to extensive state regulation without more, is insufficient to infuse its conduct with state action."). Because Appellants have failed to allege state action, the district court properly dismissed their First Amendment claim.
{Appellants argue that, even if their allegations could not support a coercion theory of state action or a regulation theory of state action when those theories are analyzed separately, their allegations could support a finding of state action if those theories were analyzed together. That argument also fails.}
The district court correctly struck, pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Appellants' claims against Breed for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with a contractual relationship.
Appellants do not have a sufficient legal basis for either of their tort claims asserted against Breed. To succeed on their claim for inducing a breach of contract, Appellants must show that a contract "was in fact breached." Because Appellants cannot show that Clear Channel breached its contract [given that the contract allowed Clear Channel to terminate it], Appellants' claim against Breed for inducing a breach of contract necessarily fails.
To succeed on their claim for intentional interference with a contractual relationship, Appellants must show that Breed knew of Appellants' billboard contracts and that she engaged in "intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship." Other than threadbare recitals of some of the elements of this cause of action, Appellants do not allege that Breed knew of their contracts with Clear Channel or Outfront, or that any of Breed's actions were intentionally designed to disrupt Appellants' contractual relationships with those companies. Indeed, the only specific action Appellants allege that Breed took was speaking critically about one of the billboards during a television interview. It is not possible to infer from that allegation that Breed's aim was to interfere with any of Appellants' contractual relationships. Consequently, Appellants failed to satisfy their burden of showing a sufficient probability of success on the merits of their tort claims against Breed, and those claims were properly struck.
The state action analysis is indeed consistent with the circuit court precedents (see this post). The interference with contract analysis strikes me as odd: Surely someone criticizing a billboard must be aware that the billboard was up under a contract, and it at least seems plausible that criticizing a billboard is intended to cause a "disruption" of a contractual relationship (even if not a breach), by being intended to urge the billboard company to remove it. Nonetheless, the claim should fail for another reason: Under California law, intentional interference with business relations (short of intentional inducement of an actual breach) is generally actionable only if it's otherwise unlawful (e.g., involves a threat of violence or some other illegal conduct).
Here's the factual backstory about the content of the billboards, from the decision below, though the content isn't legally relevant:
October 2019, plaintiffs Ellen Lee Zhou and the Asian American Freedom Political Action Committee ("AAFPAC") (collectively, "plaintiffs") posted two billboard advertisements in support of Zhou's campaign for mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.
One of AAFPAC's billboards showed Breed driving a red bus with the text "Werewolves of London Tours" near cars with smashed windows. Additional text read, "Vote Nov. 5 for Super Mayor Ellen Lee Zhou!"
Clear Channel and OutFront posted the billboards in October 2019. Soon after, Breed and her allies "began a concerted effort" to pressure Clear Channel and OutFront to remove the billboards by denouncing them as offensive, racist, and divisive. Breed's campaign publicized an October 21, 2019 press conference in front of the OutFront billboard, although Breed did not attend it. Those present, including State Assemblyman David Chiu and members of the Board of Supervisors, denounced the content of the billboard and called for its removal. News outlets reported various individuals describing the contents of the billboard as racist, misogynistic, and sexist, and opining that it had no place in San Francisco. Breed gave a media interview in which she said, "'[The billboard] is hurtful, it's disrespectful and it is no place [sic], I think in San Francisco for that kind of divisiveness.'"
See the article here:
No First Amendment Violation in Removal of Billboard After SF Mayor Had Criticized It - Reason
- Biden Wants To Avoid a First Amendment Showdown Over WikiLeaks - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- West Texas drag show becomes a First Amendment battleground - The Texas Tribune - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - The Associated Press - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and Substantial Encouragement - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- News/Media Alliance Joins Brief Defending First Amendment Editorial Rights of Documentarians - News/Media Alliance - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The State of the First Amendment: Free Speech - University of Colorado Boulder - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justices Seem Likely to Side With N.R.A. in First Amendment Dispute - The New York Times - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh loses patience with the judiciarys far right - Vox.com - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point' - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Analysis: SCOTUS Oral Arguments Bode Well For NRA First Amendment Claim [Member Exclusive] - The Reload - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear First Amendment challenge to New York's financial 'blacklisting' of NRA - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- NRA Goes To The Supreme Court Today In First Amendment CaseHere's What To Know - Forbes - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear case of former Castle Hills councilwoman who claims First Amendment rights were violated - KSAT San Antonio - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear arguments in key First Amendment case challenging Biden admin teamwork with Big Tech - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- "Black Lives Mat[t]er" + "Any Life" Drawing "Not Protected by the First Amendment" in First Grade - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - KXLY Spokane - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court hears free speech case that united the NRA and the ACLU - The Washington Post - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court Wary of States' Bid to Limit Federal Contact With Social Media Companies - The New York Times - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Opinion: A First Amendment Fizzle at the U.S. Supreme Court - The Atlanta Journal Constitution - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment is under attack in Americas Oceania - Washington Examiner - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Education Institutions Grapple With Overlap of First Amendment and Anti-Discrimination Laws - JD Supra - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - The Caledonian-Record - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Note to Justice Jackson: First Amendment Should Hamstring Biden - Daily Signal - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - KEYT - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment Supreme Court case right wingers are crazy for - The Independent - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Ketanji Brown Jackson concerned First Amendment is hamstringing government from censorship - Washington Examiner - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Jackson: First Amendment "Hamstringing" Federal Response To "Threatening Circumstances, From The ... - RealClearPolitics - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Opinion: Sen. Chuck Grassley should stand up for the First Amendment and support the PRESS Act - The Gazette - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment in Murthy v. Missouri - Washington Examiner - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- A Hillsborough judge invokes the First Amendment in a case related to a 2022 election campaign - WMNF - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- John Stockton's lawyer claims first amendment violation as basis for COVID-19 lawsuit - KXLY Spokane - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Scientology Scores A First Amendment Win Over Leah Remini, But Harassment Claims Against Church Still Stand, Judge Rules - Deadline - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear First Amendment cases, weigh in on Texas immigration law - MSN - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- 7 Expert Takeaways As the Supreme Court Considers Government Influence on Content Moderation - Just Security - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Conflict between First Amendment and discrimination on Broadway | Strictly Legal - The Cincinnati Enquirer - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Maryland fraternities petition federal judge - Baltimore Sun - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Supreme Court to debate whether White House crosses First Amendment line on social media disinformation - News-Press Now - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Broadway Actors Race Discrimination Claims Sent Back to the Underworld in the Face of Producers First Amendment ... - JD Supra - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Congress Should Give Up on Unconstitutional TikTok Bans - EFF - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- U.S. House Votes in Favor of TikTok Ban Bill Amid First Amendment and Other Questions - Democracy Now! - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Review of Amicus Briefs Filed in Murthy v. Missouri Before the Supreme Court | TechPolicy.Press - Tech Policy Press - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Supreme Court defines when it's illegal for public officials to block social media critics - The Verge - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Doctor sues state of WA for his First Amendment rights - KXLY Spokane - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- ACLU To Defend NRA as Supreme Court Weighs Whether New York Violated Gun Group's First Amendment Rights - The New York Sun - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- U.Va. alumna settles First Amendment lawsuit against the University after her expulsion in abeyance - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- The Oregonian/OregonLive wins First Amendment ruling in Nike documents case - OregonLive - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Progressive attacks on the US constitution escalate - UnHerd - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Artificial intelligence: Tennessee ELVIS Act threatens First Amendment - Tennessean - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Eighth Circuit: Fun With the First Amendment - Law.com - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: First Amendment doesn't protect senators who walked out from consequences - Herald and News - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- What Is at Stake in the Florida, Texas First Amendment Cases - Disruptive Competition Project - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Poll: Almost a third of Americans say the First Amendment goes 'too far' - Reason - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Who will protect the First Amendment? - Voz Media - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Certainty and uncertainty: The tech platform cases First Amendment News 413 - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Social Media Content Moderation Laws 'Strike at the Heart of the First Amendment' - PEN America - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Does the First Amendment apply to social media moderation? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide - 25 News KXXV and KRHD - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Jacob Sullum - Sacrificing the First Amendment to save it? - Defiance Crescent News - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- God Help Us, but Brett Kavanaugh Could Save the First Amendment - The Daily Beast - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Editorial (N.Y) Daily News: The Supreme Court's sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media - The Daily News Online - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- In Supreme Court, Texas and Florida's Argument Against Big Tech Content Moderation Runs Afoul of First Amendment - Free Press - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Two students suing SUNY Cortland over alleged First Amendment violation | 870 AM 97.7FM News Talk WHCU - whcuradio.com - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Expert calls for Supreme Court to find middle way on First Amendment tech cases - ideastream - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court social media cases could put some First Amendment claims in the firing line - Freedom of the Press Foundation - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- One-third of adults say the First Amendment 'goes too far' - Washington Times - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Does the First Amendment apply to social media moderation? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide. - Palestine Herald Press - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment - Washington Times - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- The Supreme Court's sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media - Shelbynews - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media - redlakenationnews.com - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- United States Mint Announces Release of Fourth Coin in Platinum Proof Series Celebrating Five Freedoms of the First ... - GlobeNewswire - February 9th, 2024 [February 9th, 2024]
- UNM Law professor joins amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson Supreme Court Case - UNM Newsroom - February 9th, 2024 [February 9th, 2024]
- CNN's Clarissa Ward Named a Recipient of the RTDNA's 2024 First Amendment Award - Adweek - February 9th, 2024 [February 9th, 2024]
- A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest - Vox.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- No, Blocking Traffic Is Not Protected by the First Amendment - Reason - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights - Above the Law - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment - GBH News - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Know Your Rights: Students in Higher Education & the First Amendment - New York Civil Liberties Union - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings - Society of Professional Journalists - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings - Editor And Publisher Magazine - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- FCC's Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. - Insideradio.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]