Bible v. JesÚs

• Decision Date: 07 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–2273.,09–2273.
• Citation: 634 F.3d 3
• Parties: WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; Congregación Cristiana de Los Testigos de Jehová de Puerto Rico, Inc., Plaintiffs, Appellants,v.Antonio M. SAGARDÍA DE JESÚS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Justice; Luis G. Fortuño, in his official capacity as Governor; Héctor Morales Vargas, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Planning Board of Puerto Rico; Humberto Marrero Recio, in his official capacity as Administrator of Regulations and Permits; Municipality of Bayamón; Municipality of Caguas; Municipality of Dorado; Municipality of Gurabo; Municipality of Guaynabo; Municipality of Ponce; Municipality of San Juan; Municipality of Trujillo Alto; Pacifica Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Pacifica; Villa Pas, d/b/a/ Villa Paz, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de Villa Paz, Defendants, Appellees.Municipality of Santa Isabel; Municipality of Vega Baja; Municipality of Yauco; Ciudad Interamericana de Bayamón, Inc., a/k/a Residentes Urbanización Ciudad Interamericana de Bayamón, Inc.; Ciudad Interamericana, Inc., d/b/a Ciudad Interamericana, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Ciudad; El Monte de Ponce, P.R., Inc., d/b/a El Monte, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de la Urbanización El Monte de Ponce, P.R., Inc.; Estancias de Gran Vista Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Gran Vista; Estancias de Tortuguero, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Tortuguero, a/k/a Asociación Residentes Estancias de Tortuguero, Inc.; Estancias de Yauco, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Yauco, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Urbanización Estancias de Yauco, Inc.; Estancias del Turabo, Inc., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes del Turabo, Inc.; G.H.S. Inc., Garden Hills Sur; Bairoa Golden Gate # 2, Inc., d/b/a Golden Gage II, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de Bairoa Golden Gate # 2; Hacienda Borinquen, Inc., d/b/a Hacienda Borinquen, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Hacienda Concordia, Inc.; Hacienda Concordia, Inc., d/b/a Hacienda Concordia; Los Prados de Dorado, Inc., d/b/a Los Prados Sur, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de la Urbanización Los Prados de Dorado, Inc.; Mansión Del Sur, Inc., d/b/a Mansión del sur, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Mansión del Sur, Inc.; Panorama Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Panorama State; Parque Forestal, Inc., d/b/a Parque Forestal, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Parque Forestal, Inc.; Paseo Mayor Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Paseo Mayor; Prado Alto en Torrimar, Inc., d/b/a Prado Alto, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Prado Alto en Torrimar, Inc.; Santa Clara, Inc., d/b/a Santa Clara, a/k/a Consejo de Residentes de Santa Clara, Inc.; Undare, Inc., d/b/a Santa Maria; Valles del Lago, Inc., d/b/a Valles del Lago, a/k/a Asociación Comunidad Valles del Lago, Inc.; Vereda del Río, Inc., d/b/a Vereda del Río; Del Turabo, Inc., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo, a/k/a Asociación Comunitaria del Turabo, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

634 F.3d 3

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; Congregación Cristiana de Los Testigos de Jehová de Puerto Rico, Inc., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.Antonio M. SAGARDÍA DE JESÚS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Justice; Luis G. Fortuño, in his official capacity as Governor; Héctor Morales Vargas, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Planning Board of Puerto Rico; Humberto Marrero Recio, in his official capacity as Administrator of Regulations and Permits; Municipality of Bayamón; Municipality of Caguas; Municipality of Dorado; Municipality of Gurabo; Municipality of Guaynabo; Municipality of Ponce; Municipality of San Juan; Municipality of Trujillo Alto; Pacifica Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Pacifica; Villa Pas, d/b/a/ Villa Paz, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de Villa Paz, Defendants, Appellees.Municipality of Santa Isabel; Municipality of Vega Baja; Municipality of Yauco; Ciudad Interamericana de Bayamón, Inc., a/k/a Residentes Urbanización Ciudad Interamericana de Bayamón, Inc.; Ciudad Interamericana, Inc., d/b/a Ciudad Interamericana, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Ciudad; El Monte de Ponce, P.R., Inc., d/b/a El Monte, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de la Urbanización El Monte de Ponce, P.R., Inc.; Estancias de Gran Vista Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Gran Vista; Estancias de Tortuguero, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Tortuguero, a/k/a Asociación Residentes Estancias de Tortuguero, Inc.; Estancias de Yauco, Inc., d/b/a Estancias de Yauco, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Urbanización Estancias de Yauco, Inc.; Estancias del Turabo, Inc., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes del Turabo, Inc.; G.H.S. Inc., Garden Hills Sur; Bairoa Golden Gate # 2, Inc., d/b/a Golden Gage II, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de Bairoa Golden Gate # 2; Hacienda Borinquen, Inc., d/b/a Hacienda Borinquen, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Hacienda Concordia, Inc.; Hacienda Concordia, Inc., d/b/a Hacienda Concordia; Los Prados de Dorado, Inc., d/b/a Los Prados Sur, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de la Urbanización Los Prados de Dorado, Inc.; Mansión Del Sur, Inc., d/b/a Mansión del sur, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Mansión del Sur, Inc.; Panorama Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Panorama State; Parque Forestal, Inc., d/b/a Parque Forestal, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Parque Forestal, Inc.; Paseo Mayor Homeowners Association, Inc., d/b/a Paseo Mayor; Prado Alto en Torrimar, Inc., d/b/a Prado Alto, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Prado Alto en Torrimar, Inc.; Santa Clara, Inc., d/b/a Santa Clara, a/k/a Consejo de Residentes de Santa Clara, Inc.; Undare, Inc., d/b/a Santa Maria; Valles del Lago, Inc., d/b/a Valles del Lago, a/k/a Asociación Comunidad Valles del Lago, Inc.; Vereda del Río, Inc., d/b/a Vereda del Río; Del Turabo, Inc., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo, a/k/a Asociación Comunitaria del Turabo, Inc., Defendants.

No. 09–2273.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard Sept. 15, 2010.Decided Feb. 7, 2011.

Paul D. Polidoro, with whom Gregory Allen, Associate General Counsel, Legal Department, was on brief for appellants.Daniel M. Gossett, Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel Mach, ACLU Foundation, Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, William Ramirez, American Civil Liberties Union, Puerto Rico National Chapter, John Reinstein, ACLU of Massachusetts, Zachary L. Heiden, Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and John W. Dineen, Rhode Island Affiliate, ACLU, on brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Puerto Rico National Chapter, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, and the Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union, on brief, Amici Curiae.Susan I. Peñagaricano–Brown, Assistant Solicitor General, Department of Justice, with whom Irene S. Soroeta–Kodesh, Solicitor General, Leticia Casalduc–Rabell, Acting Deputy Solicitor General, and Zaira Z. Girón–Anadón, Acting Deputy Solicitor General, were on brief for appellees Luis G. Fortuño, in his official capacity as Governor, Antonio Sagardía De Jesús, in his official capacity as Secretary of Justice, Héctor Morales Vargas, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Planning Board of Puerto Rico, and Humberto Marrero Recio, in his official capacity as Administrator of Regulations and Permits.Michael C. McCall with whom Eliezer Aldarondo–Ortiz, Claudio Aliff–Ortiz, Simone Cataldi Malpica and Aldarondo & López Bras were on brief for Municipalities.Luis E. Pabón–Roca, Clarisa Sola Gomez and Faccio & Pabón Roca on brief for the Municipality of Caguas.Pedro R. Vázquez on brief for appellee Municipality of Gurabo.Víctor R. Rodríguez, Jean G. Vidal Font and Cancio, Nadal, Rivera & Diaz, P.S.C., on brief, for appellee, Municipality of Ponce.Robert Milan and Alejandro Carrasco–Castillo, on brief, for appellee, Municipality of Trujillo Alto.Carlos R. Rodriguez–Garcia and Rodriguez–Garcia, PSC, on brief, for appellee, Pacifica Homeowner's Association, Inc.Before BOUDIN, RIPPLE ^* and SELYA, Circuit Judges.BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.

To abate crime, Puerto Rico adopted a Controlled Access Law, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 23, §§ 64–64h (2008), allowing local entities (called “urbanizations”), organized by the community but approved by the municipality, to control street access to areas within towns that have voted in favor of such plans. Appellants are two corporations operated by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses ¹ that challenged in federal district court both the statute and its application. Apart from default or consent judgments against some of the defendants, the district court denied relief. The background is as follows.

Jehovah's Witnesses accept a religious duty to share the Bible's message publicly and to proselytize from house to house. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 160–61, 122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205 (2002) (discussing Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943)). They engage in door-to-door ministry, communicate about the Bible with people on public streets, and offer religious literature to anyone interested in reading it. They say that their activities in Puerto Rico have been constrained by urbanizations acting pursuant to the Controlled Access Law that is the subject of this appeal.

The Controlled Access Law—adopted in 1987 and amended in 1988, 1992, 1997, and 1998—was prompted by and adopted against a background of endemic violent crime. Puerto Rico, with a median household income only about one-third of the U.S. national average and less than half of every other state, has a homicide rate quadruple the U.S. national rate and more than double that of virtually every state.² It is a major drug transit point, and drug dealing has led in a number of cases to corruption among local police.³

The statute, as currently amended, authorizes municipalities to grant permits to neighborhood homeowners' associations called urbanizations to control vehicular and pedestrian access to the public residential streets within the urbanization (the term referring either to the association or to the controlled area). In such cases, the area is enclosed with fencing or other barriers and with one or more entry and exit gates for pedestrians and vehicles. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 23, § 64. Some of the gates are manned by security guards paid by the association; others are unmanned and opened by a key or by an electric signal operated by a buzzer linked to the residences within the urbanization.

In some respects, the controlled access regime is a counterpart to the private “gated” residential communities that have developed elsewhere; but in Puerto Rico the streets within the area were and remain public property, and the municipality is closely involved in authorizing the urbanization. To obtain a permit, the residential community must create a residents' association; propose a plan describing the permanent barriers and access arrangements; file a petition supported by at least three-quarters of the residential homeowners; and assume the costs of installing and operating the plan. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 23, § 64a.

The statute has various provisions directed to assuring access, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 23, §§ 64, 64c, 64g, but the most important provision here specifies that the controlled access plan “shall not prevent or hinder residents from outside the community to use and enjoy sports, recreational and other community installations, nor from obtaining the services of private institutions such as schools, churches, hospitals, civic clubs and others, located in the community,” id. § 64b(e). Although the Commonwealth superintends the permit process,⁴ each municipality after a public hearing makes the decision whether to approve a permit application, id. § 64b.

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Controlled Access Law, Asociación Pro Control de Acceso Calle Maracaibo, Inc. v. Cardona Rodriguez ( Maracaibo ), 144 D.P.R. 1 (1997), stressing that the enclosed areas remain public property, id. at 28–29, 32, and that “if any regulation approved by any [urbanization] violates constitutionally protected rights, the same will be considered null and void,” id. at 27–28. Administration of an approved regime is left to the individual municipality and urbanization. Id. at 26.

Dozens of municipalities have issued permits to hundreds of urbanizations that encompass in total tens of thousands of residences. According to the Jehovah's Witnesses' unrebutted data, urbanizations range in size from a dozen residences to 300 or so, but the average urbanization encompasses about 125 residences, which may be houses, apartments, or a mixture of both. The data is not definitive, but it appears as if about half employ guards and the balance—likely the smaller ones—are accessible only...