Travis Seals v. Brandon McBee

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 9, 2018 · No. No. 17-30667

Summary

Fifth Circuit held Louisiana's public intimidation statute, La. R.S. § 14:122, facially overbroad under the First Amendment because it criminalizes threats to take lawful actions—such as threatening to sue a police officer or boycott—far beyond unprotected true threats or extortion. The court found the plaintiff had Article III standing based on a credible threat of prosecution even though the district attorney had not yet charged him, given his prior arrest and the statute's active enforcement history. The statute's "corrupt intent" gloss, requiring intent to obtain something not due as a right, did not salvage it because state courts had applied it to protected speech like threatening to sue.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Jerry E. Smith; Wiener; Willett
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
August 9, 2018
Docket number
No. 17-30667
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Intervenor–Appellant v. Travis Seals; Ali Bergeron, Plaintiffs–Appellees
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

first amendmentconstitutional lawstandingcivil proceduresummary judgmentcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

Civil RightsConstitutional Law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiffs have standing to challenge Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:122.
  2. Whether Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:122 is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

Holdings

  1. Seals has standing because he faces a credible threat of future prosecution: he was arrested for violating the statute, Louisiana concedes he is legally subject to prosecution until December 2019, and the DA's non-committal promise not to prosecute does not eliminate the credible threat.
  2. Section 14:122 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it criminalizes threats to take lawful actions (e.g., threats to sue a police officer or run against an incumbent), which are constitutionally protected speech, and this overbreadth is substantial relative to the statute's legitimate sweep.

Key quotations

Because the meaning of 'threat' is broad enough to sweep in threats to take lawful, peaceful actions—such as threats to sue a police officer or challenge an incumbent officeholder―Section 14:122 is unconstitutionally overbroad. (at 2)
The 'first step in overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute.' (at 7)
The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state. (at 15)

Factual background

In December 2014, Travis Seals was arrested for conduct not specified in the record. According to Seals, he was pepper-sprayed and verbally objected to the arrest, threatening to make lawful complaints about the officers' conduct. According to the officers, Seals violently resisted and made threats of physical harm. Any charges were ultimately dismissed or refused by the district attorney. Seals and Ali Bergeron filed a complaint against the arresting officer claiming malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and a First Amendment violation. The district court allowed Louisiana to intervene to defend the constitutionality of Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:122, which criminalizes public intimidation through threats against public officers. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court found standing and declared the statute overbroad as applied to threats.

Procedural history

The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their First Amendment claim, declaring Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:122 overbroad and enjoining enforcement. Louisiana appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…