First Amendment Civil Rights Claims
What can I do if I believe my First Amendment Rights have been infringed upon?
The First Amendment is the most important Amendment in Constitutional Law, simply because it is the first one. The specific text of the First Amendment is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Pennsylvania Constitution also guarantees similar rights in Article I, Section 7, which reads:
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
But how does that translate to modern civil practice? How can I fight to protect my first amendment civil rights?
Claims alleging First Amendment civil rights violations are typically lodged as either (or both) injunctions (equitable relief) or through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. A 1983 claim refers to a legal action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for damages for violations of their constitutional rights or a federal statute by someone acting under the color of state law. First Amendment claims take the form of speech suppression, press suppression, peaceful assembly, and religious establishments.
To properly state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Snead v. SPCA, 2007 PA Super 204, Wagner v. Waitlevertch, 2001 PA Super 100, Pettit v. Namie, 931 A.2d 790.
Section 1983 does not create any substantive rights itself but serves as a vehicle for individuals to seek redress for violations of rights established elsewhere, such as the Constitution or federal statutes. This means that a plaintiff cannot claim a violation of Section 1983 alone; they must demonstrate that a specific constitutional right (such as the 1st Amendment) or federal law (Title IX, Title VII, etc.) was violated by the defendant acting under state authority Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166, Marilyn W. v. Children & Youth Services, 2 Pa. D. & C.4th 82.
Additionally, it is important to note that certain entities, such as police departments, may not be considered "persons" under Section 1983 and therefore cannot be sued under this statute. Similarly, employers or supervisors cannot be held liable under Section 1983 on a respondeat superior or vicarious liability theory unless it is shown that they participated in or directed the violation of the plaintiff's rights.
An injunction or declaratory relief, meanwhile, is an equitable remedy requesting the Court to declare or Order the other party to do something, or stop doing something. Equitable Remedies do not involve damages but are frequently used by civil rights practitioners to establish the rights of the parties involved in the dispute.
To file a lawsuit for a violation of First Amendment rights in Pennsylvania, you would typically file in federal court if the claim is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For state constitutional claims, you may file in the Pennsylvania state courts (Commonwealth Court), but be aware that the case could be removed to federal court if it involves federal questions or claims, such as the First Amendment. Cook v. New Castle Area Sch. Dist., 25 Pa. D. & C.5th 33; Day v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 948 A.2d 900.
For the purpose of a First Amendment Section 1983 claim, a "state actor" is defined as a person or entity that is acting under color of state law. This means that the individual or entity must be exercising power that is traditionally exclusively reserved to the state. The United States Supreme Court has held that to state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Hill v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 271 A.3d 569.
In Pennsylvania, the courts have further clarified that acts of private contractors do not become acts of the government merely because they are significantly or even totally engaged in performing public contracts. For instance, in Hill v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 271 A.3d 569, it was emphasized that a private contractor working at arm's length from the state is not considered a state actor for the purposes of Section 1983 liability. This principle was supported by citing Hennessy v. Santiago, which stated that the acts of private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts. Hill v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 271 A.3d 569.
Additionally, liability under Section 1983 attaches for the constitutional violations of a state actor if the entity acts with deliberate indifference to the consequences and establishes and maintains a policy, practice, or custom which directly causes constitutional harm. Babb v. Plusa, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 9084. This underscores the necessity of a direct connection between the state actor's conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.
Therefore, to establish a First Amendment Section 1983 claim in Pennsylvania, it is crucial to demonstrate that the defendant was acting (1) under color of state law and (2) that their actions resulted in the deprivation of a constitutional right. Hill v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 271 A.3d 569.
Furthermore, a plaintiff must generally establish that they were engaged in a constitutionally protected activity, that the defendant's actions caused them to suffer an injury that would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity, and that the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's exercise of their constitutional First Amendment rights.
Multiple different entities can be held to be “acting under the color of state law” including educational establishments and universities. The determination of whether a university, or any other entity, is a “state actor” depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the university's actions and its relationship with the state.
In summary, to show a violation of First Amendment rights, a plaintiff must prove engagement in protected activity (speech, press, religion, assembly, etc.), injury caused by the defendant's actions (acting under the color of state law), and a retaliatory motive. Causes of action include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and these actions are usually filed in Federal Court. Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts, 576 Pa. 231.
