Valle del Sol, et al v. State of Arizona, et al, No. 12-15688 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis case involved two provisions in Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, which makes it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped care that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. At issue was whether these provisions violated the First Amendment by restricting and penalizing commercial speech for day laborers and for those who hire them. The court held that the district court correctly determined that, though Arizona had a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions failed Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York's requirement that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were satisfied. Therefore, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the day labor provisions.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. The panel held that the district court correctly determined that, though Arizona has a significant government interest in promoting traffic safety, the day labor provisions failed the requirement set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980), that restrictions on commercial speech be no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were satisfied.
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.