Hoffman v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 19 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-1581,96-1582 and 96-1623,s. 96-1581 |
| Citation | 126 F.3d 575,1997 WL 578787 |
| Parties | Sharon HOFFMAN; Trudie Matthews; Diane Hoefling; Ronnie Wallace, Reverend; John Bradley, Reverend, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James B. HUNT, Jr., Governor; State of North Carolina, Defendants-Appellants, and D.R. Stone; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department; United States of America, Defendants. American Medical Women's Association; Feminist Majority Foundation; Medical Students for Choice; National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League; National Center for Pro Choice Majority; National Organization for Women; National Women's Law Center; Women's Legal Defense Fund; American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Incorporated; American Civil Liberties Union; Planned Parenthood of the Triad, Incorporated; Planned Parenthood of the Southern Piedmont and Carolina Mountains, Incorporated; United States Justice Foundation; North Carolina Family Policy Council; Focus on the Family; Family Research Counsel; Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Incorporated; National Abortion Federation, Amici Curiae. Sharon HOFFMAN; Trudie Matthews; Diane Hoefling; Ronnie Wallace, Reverend; John Bradley, Reverend, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant, and James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor; State of North Carolina; D.R. Stone; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Defendants. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Incorporated; American Medical Women's Association; Feminist Majority Foundation; Medical Students for Choice; National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League; National Abortion Federation; National Center for Pro Choice Majority; National Organization for Women; National Women's Law Center; South Carolina National Organization for Women; Women's Law Project; Women's Legal Defense Fund; American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Incorporated; American Civil Liberties Union; Planned Parenthood of the Triad, Incorporated; Planned Parenthood of the Southern Piedmont and Carolina Mounta |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Stephen Woolman Preston, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Alexander McClure Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Appellants. Benjamin W. Bull, The American Center for Law and Justice, Scottsdale, AZ, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Sushma Soni, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellant United States. Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, Ann Reed, Senior Deputy Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for State Appellants. Jay Alan Sekulow, Walter M. Weber, The American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, DC; Samuel A. Wilson, III, W. David Thurman, Bush, Thurman & Wilson, Charlotte, NC, for Appellees. Pamela S. Karlan, Charlottesville, VA; Roger K. Evans, Legal Action for Reproductive Rights, New York City, for Amicus Curiae Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Martha F. Davis, Yolanda S. Wu, Now Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York City; Michael Erdos, Priscilla J. Smith, Kathryn Kolbert, Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, New York City, for Amici Curiae NOW, et al. Deborah K. Ross, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC; Burton Craige, Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, et al. Diane Bodner, Swick & Shapiro, P.C., Washington, DC; Gary G. Kreep, Kevin Snider, United States Justice Foundation, Escondido, CA, for Amicus Curiae United States Justice Foundation. Jordan W. Lorence, Fairfax, VA, for Amici Curiae North Carolina Family Policy Council, et al.
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reversed by published opinion. Judge WILKINS wrote the opinion, in which Judge RUSSELL and Judge WILLIAMS joined.
We are convened to review a decision of the district court holding two statutes--one enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina and the other enacted by the Congress of the United States--to be unconstitutional. See Hoffman v. Hunt, 923 F.Supp. 791 (W.D.N.C.1996). The district court held that a North Carolina law criminalizing the obstruction of access to or egress from health care facilities, see N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-27 7.4 (Supp.1996), 1 is violative of the First Amendment on its face and as applied. See Hoffman, 923 F.Supp. at 802-05. And, it held that a portion of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) of 1994, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 248 (West Supp.1997), 2 violates the United States Constitution. See Hoffman, 923 F.Supp. at 823. We reverse.
Plaintiffs--Sharon Hoffman, Trudie Matthews, Diane Hoefling, Ronnie Wallace, and John Bradley--are North Carolina residents who oppose abortion for moral, religious, and scientific reasons. Their opposition has motivated them to engage in demonstrations outside facilities in North Carolina where abortions are performed. Their activities include leafleting, picketing, sidewalk counseling, and other nonviolent forms of protest designed to persuade women seeking abortions to consider alternative means of confronting an unwanted pregnancy. Additionally, Plaintiffs aspire to convince health care professionals not to perform abortions. During their participation in protests outside North Carolina clinics where abortions are performed, Plaintiffs have not engaged in "rescues"--i.e., blocking women seeking abortions and health care workers from entering clinics--and have attempted to avoid arrest by complying with instructions from law enforcement officers concerning conduct and acts prohibited by various North Carolina laws, including § 14-277.4. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have been threatened with arrest for conduct that did not obstruct or block access to or egress from health care facilities. Because Plaintiffs believed that these enforcement efforts violated their First Amendment rights, they filed this action challenging the constitutionality of § 14-277.4 on its face and as applied to them. 3 While this lawsuit was pending before the district court, Congress enacted FACE. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a challenge to subsection (a)(1) of that statute on the basis that Congress lacked the authority to enact it under the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and that it violated the First Amendment. 4
Because we were then considering a constitutional challenge to FACE, the district court placed this litigation in abeyance pending the decision of this court in American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.1995). Following the February 13, 1995 decision in American Life League--which upheld the constitutionality of FACE under the Commerce Clause and the First Amendment--but before the district court had ruled in this action, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). Lopez held that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (Supp. V 1994), which prohibited the possession of "a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Lopez, 514 U.S. at 551, 115 S.Ct. at 1626 (internal quotation marks omitted). Believing that Lopez cast considerable doubt on the continuing validity of American Life League, the district court sought additional briefing directed to that issue.
Thereafter, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing with respect to the enforcement of § 14-277.4. During that hearing, Plaintiffs offered evidence concerning their experiences while participating in abortion protests. Defendants elected not to submit any evidence. Based on the testimony presented, the district court rendered findings of fact that are not challenged on appeal. Specifically, the district court found:
Police have interpreted [ § 14-277.4] in different ways and have difficulty deciding the meaning of the words "interfere", "obstruct", "impede", and "delay."
The Plaintiffs have attempted to have police define for them exactly what they may and may not do in order to comply with the statute, but have received varying interpretations from police officers.
There are different interpretations in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Facebook, Inc.
...accord Gov't of Guam ex rel. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. United States , 179 F.3d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 1999) ; see also Hoffman v. Hunt , 126 F.3d 575, 582 (4th Cir. 1997) (interpreting state statutory proviso that began, "[t]his section shall not prohibit [certain activities]" as "[b]y its term......
-
United States v. Lindberg
...suggestion that the Circuit's definition has proven "untenable" in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions. Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575, 584 (4th Cir. 1997). Of course, this Court remains bound by the panel decision in Jennings "absent contrary law from an en banc or Supreme Court de......
-
Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
...made "clear" that "several aspects of interstate commerce are directly and substantially affected by the regulated conduct." 126 F.3d 575, 586-88 (4th Cir.1997). Because Congress had made these persuasive findings we concluded that we did not need to " 'pile inference upon inference' to fin......
-
Barbour v. Int'l Union
...en banc, it is unnecessary to decide whether Footnote 3 and our approval of Getty Oil's first holding are dicta. Cf. Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575, 584 (4th Cir.1997) (“A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless it is overruled b......
-
Wetlands, waterfowl, and the menace of Mr. Wilson: commerce clause jurisprudence and the limits of federal regulation.
...federal arson law, 18 U.S.C. [setions] 844(i), was upheld, even though the convictions were overturned. (123) See, e.g., Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Soderna, 82 F.3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996); Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. (124) National Ass'n of Ho......
-
Abortion Protesting
...with the other Morrison factors, we hold that Congress validly enacted the Act pursuant to its Commerce Clause power.”); Hoffman v. Hunt, 126 F.3d 575, 588 (4th Cir. 1997) (“Because FACE regulates an activity that has a close connection with commercial activity and has a substantial effect ......