Miller v. Skumanick
605 F.Supp.2d 634, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27275, 2009 WL 838233 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may grant a temporary restraining order to enjoin a threatened state criminal prosecution when there is a reasonable likelihood that the prosecution is a retaliatory measure for the exercise of constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech and the Fourteenth Amendment right of parents to direct their children's upbringing.
Facts:
- In October 2008, officials at Tunkhannock School District confiscated student cell phones and discovered photos of students, including Marissa Miller, Grace Kelly, and Nancy Doe.
- One photo showed Miller and Kelly, then thirteen, from the waist up wearing bras; another showed Doe wrapped in a towel.
- Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick launched a criminal investigation and publicly stated that students involved could be prosecuted for felony child pornography.
- Skumanick sent letters to the parents of approximately twenty students, including the plaintiffs, offering to drop potential charges if their children completed a six- to nine-month educational and counseling program.
- The program required a $100 fee and assignments such as writing about 'what you did' and 'why it was wrong.'
- At a meeting, Skumanick told parents that even a photo of a girl in a bathing suit could be child pornography if she was posed 'provocatively,' and that he alone would decide what that meant.
- Skumanick threatened to file felony charges against the minors if they and their parents did not agree to the program within a week.
- The three minor plaintiffs and their parents refused to participate in the program, asserting the girls had done nothing illegal.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Marissa Miller, Grace Kelly, and Nancy Doe, on behalf of themselves and their minor daughters, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against District Attorney George Skumanick in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of their First Amendment rights (retaliation and compelled speech) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (parental right to direct children's upbringing).
- Contemporaneously with the complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin Skumanick from initiating criminal charges against the three minors.
- The district court held a hearing on the motion for the TRO.
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 district attorney's threat to prosecute minors for child pornography unless they participate in a mandatory 're-education' program, where the underlying conduct appears to be constitutionally protected, justify a federal court issuing a temporary restraining order to enjoin the threatened prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Munley, J.
Yes, a district attorney's threat under these circumstances justifies a temporary restraining order. A TRO is warranted because the plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their retaliation claim, will suffer irreparable harm if the prosecution proceeds, the harm to the prosecutor from a delay is minimal, and the public interest is served by protecting constitutional rights from a potentially baseless prosecution. The court found that the parents' right to direct their children's upbringing and the minors' right to be free from compelled speech are constitutionally protected activities. The threat of a felony prosecution is a sufficient adverse action to deter a person of ordinary firmness, and because the underlying photographs do not appear to meet the legal definition of child pornography, there is a reasonable likelihood that the threatened prosecution is retaliatory for the plaintiffs' refusal to participate in the defendant's program.
Analysis:
This case is significant for applying the principles of retaliatory prosecution in the novel context of teenage 'sexting' and for affirming the federal judiciary's power to enjoin a state prosecution before it has even commenced. It sets a precedent that prosecutorial discretion is not absolute and can be checked by federal courts when it appears to be used to coerce individuals into waiving their constitutional rights. The court's willingness to look past the Younger abstention doctrine, which normally prevents federal interference in state criminal matters, highlights the high value placed on protecting fundamental First and Fourteenth Amendment freedoms from bad-faith or retaliatory threats, even when no charges have been formally filed.
