Padou v. District of Columbia

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the District in a First Amendment challenge involving the selective removal of political rally posters from public lampposts. The court held that the pro se plaintiffs had adequately raised an as-applied constitutional claim and were entitled to an opportunity for discovery before further dispositive proceedings or trial. The case was remanded for discovery and further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment without affording the Padous a fair opportunity to conduct discovery relevant to their as-applied First Amendment claim.
2. The trial court improperly treated the Padous' selective-enforcement allegation as an equal-protection claim instead of addressing it as an as-applied First Amendment challenge.
3. A court ordinarily should address a properly raised as-applied First Amendment challenge before reaching a facial overbreadth challenge, because overbreadth invalidation is a strong remedy and should generally be used only as a last resort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment before the pro se plaintiffs had a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery relevant to their as-applied First Amendment challenge.
2. Whether the trial court improperly construed the Padous' selective-enforcement allegation as an equal-protection claim rather than an as-applied First Amendment claim.
3. Whether the trial court properly addressed the Padous' facial overbreadth challenge to 24 DCMR § 108.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded