White v. Julian

Home > Cases > Federal Appellate Courts >

White v. Lee

227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2000), aff'g sub nom. White v. Julian No. C-95-1757 MHP (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 1998).


	"THE FEDERAL ANTIDIS-CRIMINATION JUGGERNAUT STUMBLED RECENTLY, TRIPPED UP BY AN IMPEDIMENT CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT." WALL STREET JOURNAL

Issue: Freedom of Speech.

Action: Seeking redress for threats of prosecution by officials of the Department of Housing and Urban Development leveled at private citizens who organized peaceful protests against federally supported housing programs.

Status: Victory. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed district court order granting summary judgment.

Background: In 1993 Berkeley resident Joseph Deringer, his wife Alexandra White and neighbor Richard Graham learned of plans to convert the town's Bel Air Hotel, which abutted their property, into housing for homeless people. The news prompted them to write a letter to the developer and set about making leaflets, speaking at town meetings, and generally protesting the construction. Unknowingly, they had stepped on a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) bylaw, based on the Fair Housing Act, that barred anyone from discriminating against giving people housing for reasons of race or disability.

On November 1, the company running the Bel Air conversion filed a complaint with HUD alleging that White and the others were impairing their ability to ensure equal housing. The "Berkeley Three" first learned that they were breaking the law via a HUD notice that warned them of a $50,000 fine. Ten months of repeated HUD requests and warnings followed, all of which they ignored.

In December 1994 they went to San Francisco federal court to sue the HUD officials in their district.

The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that no reasonable person would have thought the investigation lawful. Damages of $500,000 were levied against LaVera Gillespie, the director of the area's branch of HUD during the investigation.

As White and the others argued, HUD had been violating the First Amendment in its bylaws. The decision avowed that what the three had been involved in was the "essence of First Amendment expression."

Selected documents

Order Granting Summary Judgment (December 12, 1998)

9th Circuit Opinion affirming District Court (September 27, 2000)

CIR press release (December 23, 1998)

CIR press release (September 28, 2000)

Heather MacDonald. "A Court Restrains HUD's Thought Police." Wall Street Journal, January 8, 1999, p. A18.

Jeremy Rabkin. "Developers Nail Free Speech." American Spectator, December 2000, p. 46.

Kenneth Smith. "Halt that criticism." Washington Times, December 21, 2000, p. A23.

Last revised: 23-Jul-2013