LA Alliance for Survival v. City of LA
Decision Date | 02 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. S073451.,S073451. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | LOS ANGELES ALLIANCE FOR SURVIVAL et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
James K. Hahn, City Attorney, Frederick N. Merkin, Byron R. Boeckman and Debbie Lew, Assistant City Attorneys, and Candice I. Horikawa, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants. Louise H. Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), Thomas J. Owen, Deputy City Attorney; and Mara E. Rosales for City and County of San Francisco, County of Sacramento, Port of Oakland and Port of San Diego as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Marc A. Becker, Los Angeles, and Jeremy B. Rosen, for Center for the Community Interest, 77 California Cities and Central City Association of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Kent S. Scheidegger, for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Peter J. Eliasberg, Los Angeles, Barbara J. Antonio; Karl Manheim; Law Office of Carol A. Sobel, Carol A. Sobel, Santa Monica; and William B. Rubenstein for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Maria Foscarinis and Catherine Bendor, for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Law Offices of David M. Liberman, David M. Liberman, Los Angeles, and Deborah Zexter, for One World One Family Now, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Levy, Ram & Olson, Karl Olson, San Francisco; and Alice Neff Lucan, Washington, District of Columbia, for California Newspapers Publishers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
McCutheon, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Charles Crompton III, Frank Kennamer, Meghan Rhea, San Francisco; and Judith Appel, San Francisco, for the Coalition on Homelessness and the Street Spirit as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.
We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) for certification pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.5 (rule 29.5), to address an important issue of state law: What is the proper standard under article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution ( ) for analyzing the constitutionality of ordinances governing the public solicitation of funds, i.e., in-person requests for the immediate donation or payment of money, such as City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 171664?
Plaintiffs contend that ordinances that single out such solicitation for distinct treatment should be viewed as "content-based" regulations (and hence constitutionally suspect), and may be upheld under the California liberty of speech clause only if the regulation satisfies the very stringent "strict scrutiny" standard. In contrast, defendants contend that such ordinances should not be considered content based under the California Constitution, and instead should be evaluated under the less-stringent "intermediate scrutiny" standard that California decisions traditionally have applied to "time, place, and manner" regulations of speech-related activity.
As we explain, this court's decisions dating back more than 80 years have recognized that requests for the immediate donation or payment of money — while often encompassed within and protected by the liberty of speech clause — may create distinct problems and risks that warrant different treatment and regulation. These precedents are inconsistent with plaintiffs' claim that statutes or ordinances are to be viewed as constitutionally suspect simply because they are directed at such solicitation alone and do not apply to other forms of speech-related activity. Although some recent decisions of the California and federal intermediate appellate courts have concluded that, under the California Constitution, ordinances directed at solicitation should be viewed as content based and, for that reason, must satisfy the strict scrutiny test, those decisions rest on an erroneously literal interpretation of the phrase "content based" and fail to take into account long-established California decisions upholding ordinances or regulations that impose distinct rules or requirements upon activity involving the solicitation of funds.
Accordingly, we conclude that an ordinance (such as the Los Angeles ordinance at issue in the underlying action) that is directed at activity involving public solicitation for the immediate donation or payment of funds should not be considered content based or constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution, and should be evaluated under the intermediate scrutiny standard applicable to time, place, and manner regulations, rather than under the strict scrutiny standard.
The pertinent facts are stated in the certification request of the Ninth Circuit (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.1998) 157 F.3d 1162, 1163-1164
(Los Angeles Alliance I)) as follows:
The Ninth Circuit explained the need for certification in this matter as follows:
"The answer to the certified question will resolve a critical issue of whether the California Constitution's Liberty of Speech Clause grants greater protection to speech used in conjunction with solicitation than does the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Under federal constitutional law, regulations of solicitation are reviewed as content-neutral restraints of speech. See, e.g., United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 730 [110 S.Ct. 3115, 111 L.Ed.2d 571] (1990)
[ (Kokinda) ]. In contrast, the California appellate court decision in Alternatives [, supra, 145 Cal. App.3d 436, 193 Cal.Rptr. 384,] ... [held] that regulations of solicitation are reviewed as content-based restraints of speech under the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution [ ].
Finally, the Ninth Circuit stated that no decision of the California Supreme Court addresses whether "regulation of solicitation is content-neutral or content-based," and it asserted that the California Court of Appeal cases on that issue "present conflicting views." (Los Angeles Alliance I, supra, 157 F.3d 1162, 1165.)1
The Ninth Circuit's certification request formulated the question to be addressed as follows: ." (Los Angeles Alliance I, supra, 157 F.3d 1162, 1162-1163
.) The certification request also specified, however, that its "phrasing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
...Animal Society v. Macerich Westside Pavilion Property LLC (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 168, 184, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 277 ) Alliance, supra , 22 Cal.4th 352, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 993 P.2d 334, on which Defendant relies, is inapposite. In that case, our Supreme Court held regulations directed at the immed......
-
Taking Offense v. State
...v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 ; Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 993 P.2d 334.) The Attorney General presents several arguments in support of this assertion, none of whic......
-
Verdugo v. Target Corp.
...of law but rather address only issues that "are presented on a factual record" (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 362, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 993 P.2d 334 ), we have restated the issue to conform to the facts at issue in the underlying action. (See C......
-
Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC
...Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 489, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 12 P.3d 720, & Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 366, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 993 P.2d 334.)The Ninth Circuit explained the need for guidance from this court as follows: "The outc......
-
Joyce L. Kennard: an independent streak on California's highest court.
...invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 890 (Kennard, J., dissenting). (122) L.A. Alliance for Survival v. City of L.A., 993 P.2d 334, 353-54 (Cal. 2000) (Kennard, J., (123) See Temple Cmty. Hosp. v. Super. Ct., 976 P.2d 223, 234-35 (Cal. 1999) (Kennard, J., dissenting) (e......