Sabri v. Whittier Alliance, No. 15-3075 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, five members of Whittier Alliance, a private neighborhood organization, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and Alliance itself. Plaintiffs claim that the City "commanded and encouraged" the members of the Alliance to adopt an antidefamation bylaw which unconstitutionally restricted the members' First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing and state action. In this case, the antidefamation bylaw restricts plaintiffs' ability as members of the Alliance to vote for the board candidate of their choice, and the antidefamation bylaw prevents plaintiffs from voting for themselves or any other candidates who might be considered malicious critics by the board. The court concluded that plaintiffs have suffered sufficient injury as voting members of the Whittier Alliance; their asserted injury may be traced to the objected bylaw and could be redressed by the relief they seek; and, since they have standing to raise an as applied challenge to the antidefamation bylaw, they may also challenge its overbreadth in a facial challenge. Therefore, plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the bylaw. The court concluded, however, that the adoption of the bylaws did not amount to state action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Bright and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action by members of the Alliance claiming the City of Minneapolis and the Alliance had adopted policies designed to deprive them of their First Amendment rights, the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the antidefamation bylaw passed by the Alliance as it restricted their ability as members of the Alliance to vote for Board candidates of their choice; further, their injury can be traced to the objected-to bylaw and could be redressed by the relief they seek; however, the adoption of the bylaws did not amount to state action as the City's recommendation to amend the bylaws was not coercive and the Alliance's receipt of public funds did not convert private actions by the Alliance into state action. Judge Shepherd concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ August 18, 2016
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.