Doe v. Harris, No. 13-15263 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) Act, Cal. Penal Code 290.015(a)(4)-(5), infringes their freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants and intervenors appealed. The court applied intermediate scrutiny and concluded that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge. The court concluded that registered sex offenders who have completed their terms of probation and parole enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment; First Amendment scrutiny is warranted because the Act imposes a substantial burden on sex offenders' ability to engage in legitimate online speech, and to do so anonymously; the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech in at least three ways: the Act does not make clear what sex offenders are required to report, there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report, and the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that all the necessary elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction are satisfied where there is irreparable injury sufficient to merit relief, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favor the exercise of First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining provisions of the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, which seeks, among other things, to supplement and modernize reporting obligations for registered sex offenders by requiring offenders to provide “[a] list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person” and “[a] list of any and all Internet service providers used by the person.” Cal. Penal Code § 290.015(a)(4)–(5). The panel first agreed with the district court that registered sex offenders who have completed their terms of probation and parole enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment. The panel then held that because the Act imposes a substantial burden on sex offenders’ ability to engage in legitimate online speech, and to do so anonymously, First Amendment scrutiny was warranted. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel concluded that the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech in at least three ways: (1) it does not make clear what sex offenders are required to report; (2) it provides insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report; and (3) the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad. The panel concluded that appellees were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that all the necessary elements for obtaining 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.