Federal Way Family Physicians, Inc. v. Tacoma Stands Up for Life
721 P.2d 946, 106 Wash. 2d 261 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A preliminary injunction that imposes a content-based restriction on speech, such as an absolute ban on specific words, is an unconstitutionally overbroad prior restraint. Furthermore, a place-based restriction on speech requires substantial evidence of harm and cannot be granted based on a paper record of conflicting affidavits, especially when fundamental constitutional rights are at stake.
Facts:
- Federal Way Family Physicians, Inc. (Clinic) is a family health care center in Tacoma, Washington, that provides a wide range of medical services, including abortions.
- Tacoma Stands Up For Life (TSUFL) is an organization whose members oppose abortion.
- Beginning in August 1984, TSUFL members began conducting weekly activities on the public sidewalks adjoining the Clinic property for about two hours on Thursday afternoons.
- These activities included picketing by 6 to 20 people on one sidewalk and 'counseling' by 2 or 3 people on another sidewalk, which involved speaking to pedestrians and distributing pamphlets.
- TSUFL provided its members with printed guidelines for their conduct and required them to sign an agreement to comply with these rules.
Procedural Posture:
- Federal Way Family Physicians, Inc. (the Clinic) sued Tacoma Stands Up For Life (TSUFL) in state trial court, seeking damages.
- Simultaneously with the lawsuit filing, the Clinic moved for a preliminary injunction to restrict TSUFL's protest activities.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motion, considering only affidavits submitted by the parties.
- The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, which prohibited TSUFL from picketing on certain sidewalks and from using specific words.
- TSUFL (the petitioner/appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction directly to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a preliminary injunction that (1) prohibits all picketing on a public sidewalk adjacent to a clinic and (2) institutes an absolute ban on the use of words like 'murder' and 'kill' violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment and the Washington State Constitution when the evidentiary record consists solely of conflicting affidavits?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
Yes, such a preliminary injunction violates constitutional free speech protections. The court found two major flaws with the injunction. First, regarding the place restriction that banned picketing on the L Street sidewalk, the evidentiary record was insufficient. It consisted only of conflicting affidavits and lacked substantial evidence, such as photographs or live testimony, to prove that TSUFL's activities actually obstructed access to the Clinic or that the Clinic had a 'well grounded fear of invasion' of its rights. The court held that where important constitutional rights are involved, it is reluctant to uphold a preliminary injunction against speech without substantial evidence. Second, the content restriction, which created an absolute ban on all oral and written use of words like 'murder' and 'kill,' was unconstitutionally overbroad. Citing precedent, the court explained that such a restriction 'sweeps more broadly than necessary' and that while targeted restrictions (e.g., prohibiting oral use of such words in front of young children) may be permissible, a total ban on their written or oral use is not. The state has no compelling interest in insulating all passersby from the written messages on picketers' signs. Therefore, the content ban violated both the First Amendment and the Washington Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to justify a prior restraint on speech, particularly through a preliminary injunction. By rejecting an injunction based solely on conflicting affidavits, the court signals that trial courts must demand more concrete proof of harm, such as obstruction of access, before limiting protest activities in a public forum. The ruling also clarifies the limits of content-based speech restrictions, drawing a sharp line between narrowly tailored rules to prevent specific harms and unconstitutional, overbroad bans on particular words. This strengthens protections for provocative or controversial political speech, ensuring that expression cannot be silenced simply because its content is offensive to some.
