In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed.
Read Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819
Appellate Information
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)
District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer
Opinion Filed October 30, 2009
Judges
Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge
Counsel
Counsel for Appellant: David A. Cortman, Joshua B. Bollinger, Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Lawrence G. Palladin, Jr.
Counsel for Appellee: Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter.
