The Watchtower brought suit in Puerto Rico claiming that the Controlled Access law is the reason their growth rate has stalled. I lost some formating trying to get it to post, but here are some excerpts:
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs vs. ROBERTO SANCHEZ RAMOS, et al., Defendants NO. 04-1452 (JP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
389 F. Supp. 2d 171; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20652
August 8, 2005, Decided
August 9, 2005, Filed
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff religious organization challenged the constitutionality of the Controlled Access Law (which regulated access to the streets within urbanizations (controlled access communities)) both on it's face and "as applied." The district court held that the plaintiff had associational standing to sue because it's claims could have been brought individually by a member of the organization and were germane to the organization's purpose of proselytizing. Further, the district court rejected the plaintiff's free speech facial challenge on holding the law was a valid time, place or manner restriction which was content-neutral and was narrowly tailored to serve the significant governmental interest of controlling crime. Likewise, the court held that the law did not violate the plaintiff's free association rights as the guards at the controlled access communities were limited in what they may ask potential visitors and visitors were not forced to reveal their associational ties. However, the court did not make a determination as to whether the law was unconstitutional as applied given the underdeveloped nature of the factual record.
OUTCOME: Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's facial challenge to the Controlled Access Law and was denied as to the plaintiff's "as applied" challenge.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs in the case at bar are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (hereinafter "Watchtower") and Congregacion Cristiana de Testigos de Jehova en Puerto Rico (hereinafter "Congregacion"). The Defendants are Hon. Sila Maria Calderon, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Hon. Anabelle Rodriguez, the Secretary of Justice of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Angel David Rodriguez, the Commissioner of the Planning Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and Luis A. Velez Roche, Administrator for the Regulations and Permits Administration. They are sued only in their official capacities.
There are approximately 25,000 individual Jehovah's Witnesses in Puerto Rico who distribute Watchtower's publications and talk to people about the Bible in the manner described above. Plaintiffs claim that Jehovah's Witnesses have a reputation worldwide in over 235 lands as being well dressed and groomed, and of being peaceful, law-abiding citizens, and that they are well known for their public ministry. As part of their ministry, Jehovah's Witnesses, including those in Puerto Rico, offer home Bible studies without cost to anyone who is interested and offer religious literature without cost to anyone who shows genuine interest in reading it. All preaching and teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses is done voluntarily and without charge. The basis for their doing this work is the Scriptural commission that "without cost I gladly declared the good news of God to you" as stated in the Bible by the apostle Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:7.
On May 20, 1987, the Puerto Rico Legislature passed Law No. 21, "empowering residential associations with the ability to close off their neighborhoods to outsiders." Authority was granted to close off access to public streets in neighborhoods by means of walls and gates. On July 16, 1992, the Puerto Rico Legislature passed Law No. 22, amending portions of Law No. 21 (hereinafter "the Controlled Access Law").
Plaintiffs claim that in the early 1980's, the number of Jehovah's Witnesses in Puerto Rico expanded greatly as a result of the opportunity to take their Bible-based message directly to residents at their homes. Plaintiffs claim that the percentage of growth of Jehovah's Witnesses in Puerto Rico for the years immediately prior to the passage of Law No. 21 was six percent in 1982, seven percent in 1983, five percent in 1984, five percent in 1985, and seven percent in 1986. In 1987, the year of Law No. 21's passage, the growth rate in the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses shrank to four percent. Thereafter, membership growth abated--three percent in 1988, two percent in both 1989 and 1990, three percent in 1991, and only a one percent growth in 1992 and each year from 1994 to 1998. There was no growth in 1993. In 1999, there was a decrease of three percent, followed by no change in 2000, a one percent decrease in 2001, a one percent increase in 2002, and no change in 2003.
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By restricting all visitors' access to purely residential communities that do not constitute a thoroughfare or route of communication to another destination, the Controlled Access law is intended to help to prevent these communities in preventing crime by keeping track of who enters the community, thereby reducing the risk of crimes like burglaries. Therefore, because the Court finds that the Controlled Access laws are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest in crime prevention while leaving open alternative channels of speech, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion on this [**33] issue and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' claims that the Controlled Access Law on its face violates their First Amendment right to free speech.
When faced with the inquiry dictated by the Maracaibo court, the visitor is not forced to reveal his associational ties; he or she may simply say that he or she wants to visit a particular resident, and if asked for what purpose, can reply that he or she wants to speak with the resident about a private matter. At no point is there a required disclosure of the sort that would impermissibly violate Plaintiffs' or anyone else's freedom of association. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion on this issue and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' claims that the Controlled Access Law on its face violates their freedom of association rights.
The Court is also faced with making a determination as to whether the Controlled Access Law is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs. However, at this point in these proceedings, to make such a determination would be premature given the underdeveloped nature of the factual record in this case. See Antilles Cement Corp. v. Acevedo Vila, 408 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2005) (Selya, J.). Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' "as applied" and § 1983 claims. Such claims, which shall remain active before this Court, will be addressed at a more opportune time, after the parties have been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery in this matter in order to provide the Court with an adequate factual background under which to make its determinations in this matter.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" (docket No. 13). Plaintiffs' facial Constitutional challenges are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs' "as applied" Constitutional claims and § 1983 claims remain before the Court. On or before August 29, 2005, Defendants SHALL answer the parts of the complaint that have not been dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8th day of August, 2005.
S/ Jaime Pieras, Jr.
JAIME PIERAS, JR.
U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
