|
|
Home > Cases > Freedom of speech
White v. Lee victory
affirms free speech
HUD officials barred from silencing housing opposition
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). Issue: Freedom of Speech.
Action: Successfully sought 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.
Summary: The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to speak out on matters of public concern, participate in political debate, and petition the government for redress.
In recent years, CIR has been on the forefront of legal efforts to protect this fundamental right against meddling bureaucrats and zealous ideologues who have resorted to anti-discrimination laws to stifle speech they deem threatening to their interests.
One of the most shocking examples of this abuse involves the use of federal housing discrimination law to stifle opposition to public housing projects. In 1993 Berkeley residents Joseph Deringer, his wife, Alexandra White, and neighbor Richard Graham learned of plans to convert the town's Bel Air Hotel into a shelter for homeless people, including alcohol and drug abusers. The shelter abutted their property and was also near several liquor stores.
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, however, they had stepped on a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulation, based on the Fair Housing Act, that barred anyone from interfering with efforts to provide housing opportunities for racial minorities or the disabled.
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 received a HUD notice that warned them of an impending $50,000 fine. Months of harassment from HUD followed, until the Three were forced to sue in San Francisco federal court to affirm their right to protest government actions.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the "Berkeley Three", declaring that they had been involved in the "essence of First Amendment expression." LaVera Gillespie, the director of the area's branch of HUD during the investigation, was found personally liable for abridging the free speech rights of the three plaintiffs, on the grounds that no reasonable person would have thought such an investigation to be lawful.
Read CIR's press release (September 28, 2000)
View the 9th Circuit Opinion(Sept. 27, 2000) (PDF 24K)
Read praise for the White victory:
CIR broadens the White v. Lee ruling CIR has reinforced the important new precedent set by White v. Lee with several follow-on cases intended to broaden the scope of the ruling:
CIR's other free speech cases CIR has set important other free speech precedents in other contexts, too:
Read about CIR's free speech mission and goals
 Last
revised:
23-Jul-2013
  
|
|
