Comite De Jornaleros De Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COMITE DE JORNALEROS DE 

REDONDO BEACH; NATIONAL DAY

LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK, No. 06-55750 Plaintiffs-Appellees,  D.C. No. v. CV-04-09396-CBM

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

COMITE DE JORNALEROS DE 

REDONDO BEACH; NATIONAL DAY

No. 06-56869

LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,  D.C. No.

CV-04-09396-CBM

v.

OPINION

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH,

Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 21, 2011–San Francisco, California

Filed September 16, 2011

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sidney R. Thomas, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, Milan D. Smith, Jr., Sandra S. Ikuta, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

17633 17634 COMITE DE JORNALEROS v. REDONDO BEACH Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Concurrence by Judge Ronald M. Gould; Special Concurrence by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.;…

Opinion by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.; Concurrence by Judge RONALD M. GOULD; Special Concurrence by Judge MILAN D. SMITH, JR.; Dissent by Chief Judge ALEX KOZINSKI.

OPINION

A pair of day-laborer organizations challenge a City of Redondo Beach (Redondo Beach or the City) anti-solicitation ordinance that bars individuals from “standing] on a street or highway and soliciting], or attempting] to solicit, employment, business, or contributions from an occupant of any motor vehicle.” Redondo Beach Municipal Code § 3-7.1601(a) (the Ordinance). We agree with the day laborers that the Ordinance is a facially unconstitutional restriction on speech.

Our analysis is guided by certain well-established principles of First Amendment law. In public places such as streets and sidewalks, “the State [may] enforce a content-based exclusion” on speech if the “regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 , 103 S.Ct. 948 , 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). For content-neutral regulations, the State may limit “the time, place, and manner of expression” if the regulations are…

concurring in judgment:

I agree that the City of Redondo Beach did not narrowly tailor its ordinance, nor meet its burden to show that the Ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels of communication for day laborers. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 , 109 S.Ct. 2746 , 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). If the City had designated a permissible area for day laborer solicitation, in a.convenient location for day laborers and potential employers alike, I would hold that the ordinance was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. We err when we make it so hard for municipalities to satisfy the test for reasonable restraints on time, place, and manner of speech that these municipalities cannot achieve important public goals like traffic safety while preserving speech. But because the day laborers here were shut out of the City of Redondo Beach, and left without any practical way to reach their intended audience with a message of job solicitation, see City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56-58 , 114 S.Ct. 2038 , 129 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994), and because the City’s goals could have been effectively accomplished with a narrower ordinance that did not cover all streets and that…

with whom

This is folly.

For years, the city of Redondo Beach has had a serious problem with day laborers — sometimes as many as seventy-five — • crowding sidewalks and street-corners, soliciting work from passing motorists. See Appendix 1. As might be expected when large groups of men gather at a single location, they litter, vandalize, urinate, block the sidewalk, harass females and damage property. Cars and trucks stop to negotiate employment and load up laborers, disrupting traffic.

*958 Residents and businesses need not suffer these harms and indignities day in and day out for years on end. It is to secure the safety, beauty, tranquility and orderliness of neighborhoods that municipal governments are instituted among men. Nothing in the First Amendment prevents government from ensuring that sidewalks are reserved for walking rather than loitering; streets are used as thoroughfares rather than open-air hiring halls; and bushes serve as adornment rather than latrines. See Appendix 2. The majority is demonstrably, egregiously, recklessly wrong. If I could dissent twice, I would.

Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start: Is this even a regulation of…