NATHAN PIERCE V. CHRISTI JACOBSEN, No. 21-35173 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs—a collection of organizations and individuals interested in petitioning in Montana—alleged that both of these restrictions violated their speech and association rights under the First Amendment. In upholding both restrictions, the district court held that strict scrutiny did not apply because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that either restriction imposed a severe burden on their rights. It went on to find that both restrictions sufficiently furthered Montana’s important regulatory interest to survive less exacting review.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment for Defendants. The court reversed the district court’s holding with regards to the residency requirement because it (1) imposed a severe burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights and therefore was subject to strict scrutiny, and (2) was not narrowly tailored to further Montana’s compelling interest.
The court affirmed the district court’s holding with regards to the pay-per-signature restriction because it concluded that (1) on the basis of the record produced here, plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the pay-per-signature ban imposed a severe burden on First Amendment rights and therefore less exacting review applied; and (2) the state had established that an important regulatory interest was furthered by this restriction.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Montana’s initiative petitioning process, which requires that signature gatherers seeking to gather sufficient signatures to place a measure before voters on a ballot must be Montana residents and may not be paid based upon the number of signatures obtained. Mont. Code Ann. § 13-27-102(2) (2021). Plaintiffs—a collection of organizations and individuals interested in petitioning in Montana—alleged that both of these restrictions violated their speech and association rights under the First Amendment. In upholding both restrictions, the district court held that strict scrutiny did not apply because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that either restriction imposed a severe burden on their rights. It went on to find * The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. PIERCE V. JACOBSEN 3 that both restrictions sufficiently furthered Montana’s important regulatory interest to survive less exacting review. The panel reversed the district court’s holding with regards to the residency requirement because it (1) imposed a severe burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights and therefore was subject to strict scrutiny; and (2) was not narrowly tailored to further Montana’s compelling interest. The panel noted that just as in Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008), the restriction at issue here entirely precluded out-of-state residents from exercising a form of core political speech, reduced the pool of available circulators, and imposed a severe burden. Although the state had a compelling interest in preventing fraud, it had failed to demonstrate that this ban was narrowly tailored to serve this interest when other, narrower options were available. The panel therefore reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to enter partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on this issue. The panel affirmed the district court’s holding with regards to the pay-per-signature restriction because it concluded that (1) on the basis of the record produced here, plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the pay-per-signature ban imposed a severe burden on First Amendment rights and therefore less exacting review applied; and (2) the state had established that an important regulatory interest was furthered by this restriction. The panel noted that the pay- per-signature restriction did not categorically limit the pool of circulators, did not impose a complete prohibition on any form of payment, and rationally reduced the incentive to forge signatures and commit fraud. 4 PIERCE V. JACOBSEN
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.