Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction challenging Idaho’s Children’s School and Library Protection Act, H.B. 710, under the First Amendment. The court held that the statute’s context clause, requiring consideration of whether content has serious value for minors in the context in which it is used, likely renders the statute facially overbroad. The court concluded that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors favored the plaintiffs and remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of a narrow injunction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction against enforcement of H.B. 710.
- Whether H.B. 710's context clause in Idaho Code § 18-1514(6)(b)(ii) is likely facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
- Whether the statutory definition of 'harmful to minors' is susceptible to a reasonable limiting construction consistent with Miller.
- Whether the phrase 'any act of homosexuality' in Idaho Code § 18-1514(3) renders H.B. 710 overbroad by reaching nonsexual or nonerotic conduct.
- Whether the remaining preliminary-injunction factors favored Plaintiffs.
Holdings
- H.B. 710's context clause in Idaho Code § 18-1514(6)(b)(ii) is likely facially overbroad because, under the State's proposed age-based and contextual construction, it permits subjective evaluation of a work's serious value for minors and threatens to regulate a substantial amount of protected expressive activity.
- Although the word 'includes' makes the definition expansive on its face, Idaho Code § 18-1514(6) is susceptible to a reasonable limiting construction restricting it to the categories of sexually explicit content enumerated in subsections (6)(a) and (b) and consistent with Miller.
- The phrase 'any act of homosexuality' is broad on its face and may reach nonsexual or nonerotic conduct, but when read within H.B. 710's multi-step regulatory framework it is reasonably construed to reach only same-sex sexual intercourse or physical contact with specified intimate body parts.
- Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the First Amendment overbreadth claim, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preliminary relief.
- The appropriate scope of relief must be determined by the district court in the first instance; the Ninth Circuit's reversal is limited to the context clause and does not require enjoining H.B. 710 in its entirety.
Key quotations
“We hold that, against the background of H.B. 710’s analytical framework and enforcement regime, the context clause is likely overbroad.” (34)
“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits because H.B. 710’s context clause is overbroad on its face, threatens to regulate a substantial amount of expressive activity, and is not readily susceptible to a limiting construction.” (37)
Factual background
Idaho enacted H.B. 710, the Children's School and Library Protection Act, which makes schools and public libraries civilly liable for making certain material deemed harmful to minors available to minors. The statute incorporates Idaho Code § 18-1514(6), including a provision requiring consideration of whether material possesses serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors in the context in which it is used. Private independent schools challenged the statute before enforcement and argued that its provisions exceeded the constitutional limits of obscenity regulation under Miller v. California.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging H.B. 710 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a statewide preliminary injunction. The district court dismissed the library and parent plaintiffs for lack of standing, denied the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the Private School Plaintiffs' constitutional claims, and denied the Private School Plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motion. The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial in its entirety and remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate narrow scope of preliminary relief.
Remand instructions
The district court must consider in the first instance the appropriate narrow scope of a preliminary injunction directed to H.B. 710's context clause and conduct further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion.