watchtower bible and tract soc v. somoza colombani, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc v. Somoza Colombani, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 1605 13- 1718 13- 1719

WATCHTOWER BI BLE AND TRACT SOCI ETYOF NEW YORK, I NC. ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s/Cr oss- Appel l ees,

v.

MUNI CI PALI TY OF SAN J UAN ET AL. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees/Cr oss- Appel l ant s,

ALEJ ANDRO GARC A PADI LLA,I N HI S OFFI CI AL CAPACI TY AS GOVERNOR, ET AL. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Ri ppl e* and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

Paul D. Pol i dor o, wi t h whom Gr egor y Al l en and Nor a Var gas

*Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on


2/29

Acost a wer e on br i ef , f or pl ai nt i f f s.Rosa Mar a Cr uz- Ni emi ec, wi t h whomCr uz Ni emi ec & Vzquez was

on br i ef , f or def endant Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan.Mi chael C. McCal l , wi t h whom Lui s Pabn Roca, Cl ar i sa Sol

Gmez, Cl audi o Al i f f - Or t i z, I van Pasar el l - J ove, Raf ael E. Ri ver a-Snchez, Pedr o R. Vzquez, I I I , Edgar Her nndez Snchez, Rober t

Mi l l n, The Law Of f i ces of Mi chael Cr ai g McCal l , Facci o & PabnRoca, Al darondo & Lopez Br as, P. S. C. , Pedr o R. Vzquez Law Of f i ce,Canci o, Nadal , Ri ver a & D az, P. S. C. , and Mi l l an Law Of f i ces wer eon var i ous br i ef s, f or r emai ni ng seven muni ci pal def endant s.

Susana I . Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t orGener al , Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Mar gar i t a L. Mer cado-Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , was on br i ef , f or Commonweal t hdef endant s.

November 20, 2014


3/29

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Unl i ke ot her j ur i sdi cti ons, Puer t o

Ri co al l ows pr i vat e ci t i zens t o mai nt ai n gat ed r esi dent i al

communi t i es t hat i ncor por at e publ i c st r eet s. Thi s unor t hodox

conf i gur at i on pr oduces an awkward amal gamof t he publ i c and pr i vat e

sect or s, whi ch makes t he t ask of appl yi ng t r adi t i onal Fi r st

Amendment j ur i spr udence somet hi ng of an advent ur e. A pr edi ct abl e

r esul t i s t he sor t of di ssonance t hat i s appar ent her e.

Thi s t en- year - ol d l i t i gat i on i s no st r anger t o t hi s

cour t . See Wat cht ower Bi bl e & Tr act Soc' y of N. Y. , I nc. v.

Sagar d a De J ess ( Wat cht ower I ) , 634 F. 3d 3 ( 1st Ci r . ) , r eh' g

deni ed, 638 F. 3d 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Wat cht ower Bi bl e & Tr act Soc' y

of N. Y. , I nc. v. Col ombani ( Wat cht ower I I ) , 712 F. 3d 6 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . I t t r aces i t s r oot s t o t he desi r e of t he J ehovah' s

Wi t nesses t o access publ i c st r eet s wi t hi n gat ed communi t i es i n

or der t o spr ead t hei r r el i gi ous message. Thi s desi r e put s t hei r

l egi t i mat e Fi r st Amendment r i ght s on a col l i si on cour se wi t h Puer t o

Ri co' s deci si on t o al l ow r esi dent s t o pr ot ect t hemsel ves agai nst

vi ol ent cr i mes by est abl i shi ng gat ed communi t i es t hat i ncor por at e

publ i c st r eet s. Seeki ng t o avoi d t hi s col l i si on and payi ng heed t o

our pr i or opi ni ons i n t hi s l i t i gat i on, t he cour t bel ow car ef ul l y

bal anced compet i ng concer ns and devi sed a pr act i cal sol ut i on. That

sol ut i on sat i sf i ed no one, and bot h t he J ehovah' s Wi t nesses and t he

- 3-


4/29

af f ect ed muni ci pal i t i es appeal . 1 Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we

uphol d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sol ut i on but modi f y i t i n some aspect s

and r emand t he case f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

I. BACKGROUND

Thi s case has a t wi st ed pr ocedural hi st or y. We assume

t he r eader ' s f ami l i ar i t y wi t h our ear l i er opi ni ons and r ehear se

her e onl y those event s necessary to pl ace t he pendi ng appeal s i nt o

per spect i ve.

I n r esponse t o an epi demi c of vi ol ent cr i mes, t he

Commonweal t h enact ed t he Cont r ol l ed Access Law ( CAL) , P. R. Laws

Ann. t i t . 23, 64- 64h, whi ch al l ows muni ci pal i t i es t o aut hor i ze

nei ghbor hood associ at i ons t o er ect gat es encl osi ng publ i c st r eet s.

See Wat cht ower I , 634 F. 3d at 6- 7; see al so P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 23,

64. These gat ed communi t i es ar e cal l ed "ur bani zat i ons. "

Even t hough t he CAL and i t s r egul at i ons set a f r amework

f or admi ni st r at i on of t he cont r ol l ed access scheme, t he per mi t t i ng

pr ocess i s i n t he hands of t he muni ci pal i t i es. They may adopt

r ul es "needed t o car r y out t he pur poses of " t he CAL. P. R. Laws

Ann. t i t . 23, 64e; see Asoc. Pr o Cont r ol de Acceso Cal l e

Mar acai bo, I nc. v. Car dona Rodr i guez ( Mar acai bo) , 144 D. P. R. 1, 26

( P. R. 1997) ( expl ai ni ng t hat muni ci pal i t i es have "t he aut hor i t y t o

1 Var i ous of f i ci al s of t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co( col l ect i vel y, t he Commonweal t h def endant s) wer e pr ovi si onal l ydi smi ssed as def endant s and appear here as appel l ees.

- 4-


5/29

def i ne t he syst em t o be used and t o est abl i sh t he per t i nent and

appr opr i at e r equi si t es" f or each pr oposed ur bani zat i on) . A per mi t

may not be revoked once i t i s r ecor ded, but a muni ci pal i t y may

i mpose sanct i ons f or vi ol at i ons of appl i cabl e r ul es and

r egul at i ons. See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 23, 64d.

I n 2004, t wo cor porat i ons oper ated by t he governi ng body

of t he J ehovah' s Wi t nesses br ought sui t agai nst t he Commonweal t h

def endant s under 42 U. S. C. 1983. Thei r compl ai nt al l eged t hat

t he CAL, on i t s f ace and as admi ni st er ed, unconst i t ut i onal l y

i nf r i nged t he J ehovah' s Wi t nesses' r i ght t o engage i n door - t o- door

mi ni st r y. I n suppor t , t hey asser t ed t hat access t o cer t ai n

ur bani zat i ons was r out i nel y deni ed by secur i t y guar ds and t hat

unmanned gat es, accessi bl e sol el y by r esi dent - cont r ol l ed keys or

buzzer s, wer e ef f ect i vel y i mpenet r abl e to nonr esi dent s.

The Commonweal t h def endant s moved t o di smi ss t he

compl ai nt . The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on as t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s' f aci al chal l enge t o t he CAL but decl i ned t o addr ess t he

as- appl i ed chal l enge i n t he absence of a devel oped r ecor d. Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , t he cour t di r ect ed t he pl ai nt i f f s t o f i l e an amended

compl ai nt " i ncl ud[ i ng] as def endant s t he speci f i c communi t i es whi ch

wi l l be af f ect ed by any deci si on of t hi s Cour t . " The pl ai nt i f f s

el ect ed t o sue onl y a " r epr esent at i ve" sampl i ng of muni ci pal i t i es. 2

2 The pl ai nt i f f s j oi ned a smat t er i ng of ur bani zat i ons asaddi t i onal def endant s. No ur bani zat i on r emai ns an act i ve par t y.

- 5-


6/29

Af t er di scover y, t he par t i es cr oss- moved f or summar y

j udgment on t he as- appl i ed cl ai ms. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

def endant s' mot i ons, see Wat cht ower Bi bl e & Tr act Soc' y of N. Y. ,

I nc. v. Snchez- Ramos, 647 F. Supp. 2d 103, 125- 26 (D. P. R. 2009) ,

and t he pl ai nt i f f s appeal ed. We af f i r med t he di smi ssal of t he

pl ai nt i f f s' f aci al chal l enge but vacat ed t he j udgment on t he as-

appl i ed cl ai ms and r emanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs. See

Wat chtower I , 634 F. 3d at 17.

Wi t h r espect t o manned ur bani zat i ons, we exhor t ed t he

di st r i ct cour t t o "t ake pr ompt act i on" t o ensur e t hat guar ds

pr ovi de access t o J ehovah' s Wi t nesses who i dent i f y t hemsel ves and

st ate t hei r pur pose. I d. We noted t hat unmanned ur bani zat i ons by

t hei r ver y nat ur e gave " r esi dent s a vet o r i ght over access, " and

stated:

A r egi me of l ocked, unmanned gat es compl et el ybar r i ng access t o publ i c st r eet s wi l l pr ecl udeal l di r ect communi cat i ve act i vi t y by non-r esi dent s i n t r adi t i onal publ i c f or ums, and,absent a more speci f i c showi ng, cannot bedeemed "nar r owl y t ai l ored. " Thus, a mannedguar d gat e f or each ur bani zat i on i s r equi r ed,unl ess t he ur bani zat i on car r i es a bur den ofspeci al j ust i f i cat i on.

I d. at 13. Whi l e r ecogni zi ng t hat r emedi at i on coul d not be

accompl i shed over ni ght , we assumed t hat some unmanned urbani zat i ons

mi ght hi r e and t r ai n guar ds, wher eas ot her s t hat sought " t o j ust i f y

more l i mi t ed access ar r angement s ( f or exampl e, manned gat es f or

l i mi t ed per i ods on desi gnat ed days) or an exempt i on because of

- 6-


7/29

smal l si ze" woul d "need[ ] a chance t o pr opose and def end such a

r equest . " I d. at 17. I n denyi ng r ehear i ng, we cl ar i f i ed t hat we

had made no f i ndi ng of l i abi l i t y on t he par t of any of t he

def endant s and expl ai ned t hat "any muni ci pal i t y or ur bani zat i on i s

f r ee on remand to ur ge t hat i t di d not i mpr oper l y bar access or

di scr i mi nat e. " Wat cht ower Bi bl e & Tr act Soc' y, 638 F. 3d at 83.

The di st r i ct cour t conduct ed a f ur t her hear i ng and, on

Febr uar y 1, 2012, i ssued an order r espondi ng t o our deci si on. I t

di r ect ed each muni ci pal def endant t o cer t i f y wi t hi n t wo mont hs t hat

al l manned ur bani zat i ons wi t hi n i t s bor der s had been i nst r uct ed t o

pr ovi de i mmedi ate access t o J ehovah' s Wi t nesses who di scl ose t hei r

pur pose and i dent i t y. I n addi t i on, i t gave t he muni ci pal i t i es t i me

t o pr epare and submi t act i on pl ans t ai l ored to t he unmanned

ur bani zat i ons i n t hei r r espect i ve j ur i sdi ct i ons. Fi nal l y, t he

cour t or der ed t hat , goi ng f or war d, muni ci pal i t i es shoul d not i ssue

per mi t s f or new unmanned ur bani zat i ons absent some speci al

j ust i f i cat i on.

At t he same t i me, t he cour t di smi ssed t he Commonweal t h

def endant s sua spont e. When obj ect i ons ensued, t he di st r i ct cour t

r equest ed br i ef i ng on t he i ssue. Af t er consi der i ng t he par t i es'

submi ssi ons, t he cour t r eaf f i r med t he di smi ssal of t he Commonweal t h

def endant s. The pl ai nt i f f s at t empt ed t o t ake an i mmedi ate appeal

f r om t hi s rul i ng. We di smi ssed t hat appeal f or want of appel l at e

j ur i sdi ct i on. See Wat cht ower I I , 712 F. 3d at 13.

- 7-


8/29

The case meandered i n t he di st r i ct cour t f or over a year .

Event ual l y, t he cour t ent er ed a f i nal j udgment as t o unmanned

ur bani zat i ons. The core el ement of t he cour t ' s r emedi al scheme was

a di r ect i ve t hat each muni ci pal def endant f ur ni sh t he pl ai nt i f f s

wi t h "unf et t er ed" access ( t went y- f our hour s a day, seven days a

week) t o ever y unmanned ur bani zat i on wi t hi n i t s border s. To

accompl i sh t hi s obj ect i ve, t he muni ci pal i t i es wer e or der ed t o

gat her and t ur n over t o t he pl ai nt i f f s al l means of access

avai l abl e t o resi dent s of unmanned ur bani zat i ons ( such as keys,

buzzer s, or access codes) . The muni ci pal i t i es wer e gi ven a

r el at i vel y shor t t i me f r ame wi t hi n whi ch t o col l ect t he means of

access and were warned t hat sanct i ons woul d be i mposed f or del ays.

The obl i gat i on was ongoi ng: i f an ur bani zat i on changed i t s means of

access ( say, by conver t i ng t o a new key syst emor a modi f i ed access

code) , t he muni ci pal i t i es wer e obl i ged t o tur n over such new means

of access wi t hi n t went y- f our hour s. 3 The cour t r et ai ned

j ur i sdi ct i on f or enf or cement pur poses.

The muni ci pal def endant s moved unsuccessf ul l y f or

r econsi der at i on. Even bef or e t he appeal per i od expi r ed, sever al

muni ci pal i t i es of f er ed r easons why cer t ai n ur bani zat i ons shoul d be

exempt ed f r om t ur ni ng over means of access ( f or exampl e, some

3 Ci t i ng our deci si on i n Wat cht ower I , t he di st r i ct cour t , i nparagr aph 6 of i t s j udgment , al so di r ect ed each muni ci pal def endantt o eval uat e whet her unmanned ur bani zat i ons i n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on hadany "speci al j ust i f i cat i on" f or not conver t i ng t o manned gat es.

- 8-


9/29

ur bani zat i ons l ef t pedest r i an gat es open t went y- f our hour s a day) .

The di st r i ct cour t br ushed t hese r easons asi de, t el l i ng t he

af f ect ed muni ci pal i t i es t hat , i f any r esi st ence devel oped, t hey

shoul d f or ci bl y l ock t he unmanned gat es i n t he open posi t i on.

Sanct i ons wer e subsequent l y l evi ed agai nst noncompl i ant

muni ci pal i t i es.

I n due season, t he pl ai nt i f f s and t he muni ci pal

def endant s appeal ed. We consol i dat ed t hese appeal s f or br i ef i ng

and ar gument .

II. ANALYSIS

The cent er pi ece of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r emedi al scheme

wi t h r espect t o unmanned ur bani zat i ons i s a mandatory i nj unct i on

di r ect ed at t he muni ci pal def endant s. When a par t y appeal s f r om

t he i ssuance of an i nj unct i on, appel l at e r evi ew i s f or abuse of

di scr et i on. See Shel l Co. ( P. R. ) v. Los Fr ai l es Ser v. St at i on,

I nc. , 605 F. 3d 10, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; K- Mar t Cor p. v. Or i ent al

Pl aza, I nc. , 875 F. 2d 907, 915 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . Wi t hi n t hi s

r ubr i c, concl usi ons of l aw ar e assayed de novo and f i ndi ngs of f act

ar e assayed f or cl ear er r or . See Bl ( a) ck Tea Soc' y v. Ci t y of

Bos. , 378 F. 3d 8, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . J udgment cal l s, i ncl udi ng

t he l ower cour t ' s choi ce of equi t abl e r emedi es, ar e af f or ded

subst ant i al def er ence and wi l l be di st ur bed onl y i f t he cour t has

made a si gni f i cant l y mi st aken j udgment . See Rosar i o- Tor r es v.

Her nndez- Col n, 889 F. 2d 314, 323 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( en banc) .

- 9-


10/29

These appeal s r ai se a cacophony of i ssues. We st ar t wi t h

a t hr eshol d mat t er : t he muni ci pal i t i es' cont ent i on t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms ar e moot . Fi ndi ng t hi s cont ent i on mer i t l ess, we

pr oceed t o exami ne the par t i es' ot her assi gnment s of er r or .

A. Mootness.

The muni ci pal i t i es' ar gument f or moot ness hi nges on t he

f act t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment i s f avor abl e t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s. But even t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s obt ai ned some r el i ef ,

t hey r et ai n a r i ght t o appeal t he scope and r each of t he remedy

gr ant ed. See For ney v. Apf el , 524 U. S. 266, 271 ( 1998) . That t he

muni ci pal def endant s have compl i ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r emedi al or der does not di mi ni sh t hi s r i ght . See Vi t ek v. J ones,

445 U. S. 480, 487 ( 1980) ; see al so N. Y. St ate Nat ' l Or g. f or Women

v. Ter r y, 159 F. 3d 86, 92 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ( " [ V] ol unt ar y cessat i on of

mi sconduct does not engender moot ness where t he cessat i on r esul t ed

f r om a coer ci ve or der and a t hr eat of sanct i ons. " ) . Accor di ngl y,

we hol d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms are not moot .

B. Propriety of Injunctive Relief.

The muni ci pal i t i es asser t t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n gr ant i ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n t he absence of a suppor t abl e

f i ndi ng t hat t hey vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f s ' const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

Rel at edl y, t hey asser t t hat t he i nj unct i on must be resci nded due t o

t he absence of f act ual f i ndi ngs.

- 10-


11/29

The f i r st asser t i on i s bui l t on t he not i on t hat cour t s

l ack aut hor i t y t o i mpose a remedy agai nst a def endant who has not

been shown t o be a wr ongdoer . See, e. g. , Ri zzo v. Goode, 423 U. S.

362, 377 ( 1976) ; Mi l l i ken v. Br adl ey, 418 U. S. 717, 745 ( 1974) .

The muni ci pal i t i es say t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made no f i ndi ng t hat

t hey (as opposed t o t he ur bani zat i ons) wer e r esponsi bl e f or

i nf r i ngi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st Amendment r i ght s.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t made no expl i ci t st at ement

t hat t he muni ci pal i t i es had vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st

Amendment r i ght s, we t hi nk such a det er mi nat i on i s i mpl i ci t i n t he

cour t ' s f i ndi ngs, vi ewed as a whol e. I n i t s Febr uar y 2012 or der ,

t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat "i n ever y Muni ci pal i t y t her e

cur r ent l y exi st . . . ur bani zat i ons wi t h unmanned gat es, wher e

access i s t hr ough a l ocked gat e or buzzer oper at ed sol el y by

r esi dent s. " Thi s i s pr eci sel y t he t ype of access regi me t hat we

deemed unconst i t ut i onal i n Watcht ower I , 634 F. 3d at 13. The

di st r i ct cour t went on t o f i nd t hat "by vi r t ue of t he [ CAL] , i t i s

t he Muni ci pal i t i es t hat appr ove ur bani zat i ons' r equest s f or any

t ype of cont r ol l ed access. " These f i ndi ngs dovet ai l wi t h t he

cour t ' s ear l i er f i ndi ng t hat t he gr ant of a per mi t t o an

ur bani zat i on "does not abr ogat e t he muni ci pal i t y' s obl i gat i on t o

ensur e t hat publ i c st r eet s r emai n avai l abl e f or publ i c use. "

Wat chtower Bi bl e & Tract Soc' y, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 109.

- 11-


12/29

We r evi ew f or cl ear er r or a di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual

f i ndi ngs. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 52( a) ( 6) ; AI DS Act i on Comm. of

Mass. , I nc. v. MBTA, 42 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . The aggr egat e

f i ndi ngs her e, expl i ci t and i mpl i ci t , conf i r m t hat t he muni ci pal

def endant s have had a cust om and pr act i ce of i ssui ng per mi t s t o

unmanned ur bani zat i ons wi t hout ensur i ng t hat t he publ i c st r eet s

wi t hi n t hem ar e open t o pr ot ect ed speech act i vi t i es. These

f i ndi ngs are suppor t ed by the evi dence and, t her ef or e, ar e not

cl ear l y er r oneous. Mor eover , t hey ar e adequat e t o under gi r d a

gr ant of i nj unct i ve r el i ef . See Monel l v. Dep' t of Soc. Ser vs. ,

436 U. S. 658, 694 ( 1978) .

Al most as an af t er t hought , t he muni ci pal def endant s

quest i on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ng t hat ever y def endant

muni ci pal i t y host ed one or more unmanned ur bani zat i ons. Thi s i s

much ado about ver y l i t t l e: even i f t he recor d may have been hazy

at t he t i me, subsequent pr oceedi ngs have made t he accuracy of t he

f i ndi ng abundant l y cl ear . Consequent l y, r emandi ng f or f ur t her

i nqui r y i nt o t hi s poi nt woul d be an empt y r i t ual . See Aoude v.

Mobi l Oi l Cor p. , 862 F. 2d 890, 895 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( ci t i ng Gi bbs v.

Buck, 307 U. S. 66, 78 ( 1939) ) .

Thi s br i ngs us t o t he under l yi ng l egal quest i on, whi ch

engender s de novo r evi ew. See AI DS Act i on Comm. , 42 F. 3d at 7. We

agr ee wi t h t he cour t bel ow t hat l egal r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he

pl ai nt i f f s' i nj ur y may be pl aced on t hose host muni ci pal i t i es t hat

- 12-


13/29

i ssued per mi t s aut hor i zi ng unmanned ur bani zat i ons wi t h no r el i abl e

means of publ i c access. Mor e t han a decade bef or e t hi s l i t i gat i on

began, t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t decl ared t hat a muni ci pal i t y,

i n i t s capaci t y as t he per mi t t i ng aut hor i t y under t he CAL, must

"car ef ul l y exami ne t he access cont r ol pr oposal submi t t ed f or i t s

appr oval . " Caqu as Mendoza v. Asoc. de Resi dent es de Mansi ones de

R o Pi edr as, 134 D. P. R. 181, P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 14 ( P. R. 1993) .

The muni ci pal i t y' s r esponsi bi l i t y ext ends t o an exami nat i on of " t he

manner i n whi ch t he appl i cant ent i t y pl ans t o oper at e" t he pr oposed

ur bani zat i on. I d. The pur pose of such an i nqui r y i s t o ensur e

t hat any pr oposed access pl an "does not i nf r i nge on t he r i ght s

conf er r ed by our l egal syst em t o al l t he par t i es af f ect ed by i t . "

I d. at 15. I n a l at er case, t he same cour t expl ai ned t hat

muni ci pal i t i es must set "speci f i c cri t er i a t o gui de t he

[ ur bani zat i ons] wi t h r espect t o how t o cont r ol t he access. "

Mar acai bo, 144 D. P. R. at 26. I n ot her wor ds, muni ci pal i t i es have

"t he aut hor i t y t o def i ne t he syst emt o be used and t o est abl i sh t he

per t i nent and appr opr i at e r equi si t es f or each [ ur bani zat i on] . " I d.

We t hi nk i t f ol l ows t hat , i n admi ni st er i ng t he CAL, each

muni ci pal i t y has an ongoi ng dut y t o ensur e that t he Fi r st Amendment

i s r espect ed i n t he ur bani zat i ons f ounded under i t s auspi ces. I n

addi t i on, t he l egi sl at ur e has i mpl ant ed t eet h i n t hi s gr ant of

aut hor i t y: t he CAL gi ves muni ci pal i t i es t he power t o i mpose

- 13-


14/29

sanct i ons on a waywar d ur bani zat i on even af t er a per mi t i s i ssued

and r ecor ded. See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 23, 64d.

The muni ci pal i t i es t r y t o t ake cover under t he r ul e t hat

ci t i es cannot be hel d l i abl e f or t hi r d- par t y const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i ons. See Monel l , 436 U. S. at 691. Thei r pr emi se i s

cor r ect. Thi s i s a secti on 1983 sui t , and del i ber at e

i ndi f f er ence asi de4 a muni ci pal i t y i s subj ect t o l i abi l i t y under

sect i on 1983 onl y i f a depr i vat i on of r i ght s i s ef f ect ed pur suant

t o a muni ci pal pol i cy or cust om. See L. A. Cnt y. v. Humphr i es, 131

S. Ct . 447, 449 ( 2010) ( appl yi ng Monel l t o equi t abl e cl ai ms) . But

t he concl usi on t hat t he muni ci pal def endant s dr aw f r omt hi s pr emi se

i s f aul t y. As we made cl ear i n Wat cht ower I , " [ a] ut hor i zat i on of

cont r ol l ed access i s on i t s f ace an i mpl ement at i on of muni ci pal

pol i cy. " 634 F. 3d at 9. Here, t he r ecord ampl y demonst r ates t hat

t he muni ci pal def endant s have had a pol i cy and cust om of i ssui ng

per mi t s t o ur bani zat i ons wi t hout at t achi ng condi t i ons suf f i ci ent t o

ensur e publ i c access. Thi s pol i cy and cust om l ed di r ect l y t o t he

i nf r i ngement of t he pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. No mor e i s

exi gi bl e t o war r ant equi t abl e r el i ef agai nst t he muni ci pal

def endant s.

4 I n a sect i on 1983 case agai nst a muni ci pal i t y, a f i ndi ng ofl i abi l i t y mi ght al so be based on del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t o anobvi ous r i sk of a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. See Ci t y of Cant on v.Har r i s, 489 U. S. 378, 390 ( 1989) . Whi l e we not e t hi s possi bi l i t yf or t he sake of compl et eness, we need not expl ore i t her e.

- 14-


15/29

The muni ci pal def endant s have a f al l back posi t i on. They

ar gue t hat t he i nj unct i on must be vacat ed because t he di st r i ct

cour t f ai l ed suf f i ci ent l y t o expl ai n t he r easons f or i ssui ng i t

and, t hus, vi ol at ed Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 65( d) ( 1) ( A) .

We do not agr ee.

Rul e 65( d) ( 1) ( A) pr ovi des t hat ever y i nj unct i on must

"st at e t he r easons why i t i ssued. " The di st r i ct cour t ' s or der s,

r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h t he hear i ng t r anscr i pt s, chr oni cl e t he

cour t ' s l audabl e ef f or t t o bal ance t he par t i es' and t he publ i c' s

compet i ng i nt er est s f r ee speech ver sus per sonal secur i t y whi l e

avoi di ng t he i mposi t i on of undue admi ni st r at i ve and f i nanci al

bur dens on muni ci pal i t i es and ur bani zat i ons. Those sour ces combi ne

adequat el y to appr i se t he par t i es of t he r easons f or t he i nj unct i on

and suppl y a sat i sf act or y basi s f or meani ngf ul appel l at e r evi ew.

Rul e 65( d) ( 1) ( A) must be gi ven a commonsense const r uct i on, not a

hyper t echni cal one. See Wi t hr ow v. Lar ki n, 421 U. S. 35, 45 ( 1975) ;

Gl obal NAPs, I nc. v. Ver i zon New Eng. , I nc. , 706 F. 3d 8, 15 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( per cur i am) . Whi l e a mor e el abor at e st at ement of t he

cour t ' s r at i onal e woul d have been hel pf ul her e, i t i s enough t hat

t he cour t made t he essence of i t s r easoni ng pl ai n bef or e or der i ng

i nj unct i ve r el i ef . See Gl obal NAPs, 706 F. 3d at 15.

C. The Watchtower I Mandate.

We t ur n now t o the argument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

vi ol at ed t he mandat e r ul e i n craf t i ng equi t abl e r el i ef . I n i t s

- 15-


16/29

per t i nent i t er at i on, t he mandat e r ul e, a br anch of t he l aw of t he

case doct r i ne, pr event s r el i t i gat i on i n t he l ower cour t of i ssues

al r eady deci ded on an ear l i er appeal of t he same case. See Mun' y

of San J uan v. Rul l an, 318 F. 3d 26, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . We r evi ew

de novo whether and t o what ext ent t he mandat e r ul e appl i es. See

Negr n- Al meda v. Sant i ago, 579 F. 3d 45, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Al t hough bot h si des suggest t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r emedi al scheme f or unmanned ur bani zat i ons f l out s t he mandat e i n

Wat cht ower I , t hey of f er di spar at e r easons f or t hei r suggest i on.

Fr om t he pl ai nt i f f s' st andpoi nt , t he put at i ve mandat e vi ol at i on

r est s on our st at ement t hat "a manned guard gat e f or each

ur bani zat i on i s r equi r ed, unl ess t he ur bani zat i on car r i es a bur den

of speci al j ust i f i cat i on. " Wat cht ower I , 634 F. 3d at 13. The

pl ai nt i f f s posi t t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i gnor ed t hi s st at ement and

i mpr ovi dent l y al l owed unmanned ur bani zat i ons t o f orgo hi r i ng guards

wi t hout f i r st j ust i f yi ng t hei r ent i t l ement t o an except i on. The

muni ci pal i t i es come at t he put at i ve mandat e r ul e vi ol at i on f r om a

di f f er ent di r ect i on. Rel yi ng on our st at ement t hat " [ t ] he di st r i ct

cour t wi l l have t o det er mi ne whet her and when i t i s r easonabl e t o

r el y onl y on a buzzer syst em or some l i mi t ed guar d access, " i d. ,

t hey posi t t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have consi der ed each

ur bani zat i on si ngl y i nst ead of i mposi ng a gl obal sol ut i on.

We r eadi l y admi t t hat our opi ni on i n Watcht ower I cr eated

some ambi gui t y as t o t he scope of di scr et i on avai l abl e t o t he

- 16-


17/29

di st r i ct cour t . We di d not i nt end t o l ay down r i gi d r ul es but ,

r at her , meant t o hi ghl i ght t hat t he di st r i ct cour t must t ake some

r emedi al act i on t o r esol ve t he uni que const i t ut i onal pr obl ems

pr esent ed by unmanned ur bani zat i ons. And i n al l event s, what we

sai d about speci f i c r emedi es was not par t of our mandate.

The scope of an appel l at e mandat e i s r est r i ct ed by t he

i ssues that wer e act ual l y bef or e t he appel l at e cour t . See Bi ggi ns

v. Hazen Paper Co. , 111 F. 3d 205, 209 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ( "Br oadl y

speaki ng, mandates r equi r e r espect f or what t he hi gher cour t

deci ded, not f or what i t di d not deci de. " ) . The i ssue i n

Wat cht ower I was whet her t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n di smi ssi ng any

or al l of t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms. See 634 F. 3d at 8. I ssues of

r emedi at i on wer e not bef ore t he Watcht ower I cour t and, t hus, t he

natur e and ext ent of any par t i cul ar r emedy was not wi t hi n t he scope

of our mandat e. See Amado v. Mi cr osof t Corp. , 517 F. 3d 1353, 1360

( Fed. Ci r . 2008) .

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . We i nt ended nei t her

t o bi nd t he di st r i ct cour t t o a pr esumpt i on t hat unmanned

ur bani zat i ons shoul d hi r e guar ds nor t o pr ecl ude t he use of a

gl obal sol ut i on t o t he pr obl ems pr esent ed by unmanned

ur bani zat i ons. Accor di ngl y, we r ej ect t he par t i es' mandat e r ul e

- 17-


18/29

ar gument s5 and pr oceed t o eval uat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r emedi al

scheme on t he mer i t s.

D. The Merits.

The abuse of di scr et i on st andar d appl i es t o r evi ew of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s choi ce of a par t i cul ar equi t abl e r emedy. See

Rosar i o- Tor r es, 889 F. 2d at 323. Thi s st andar d i s hi ghl y

def er ent i al . See i d.

Ther e can be no doubt t hat t he Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect s

access t o t r adi t i onal publ i c f or ums, i ncl udi ng publ i c st r eet s, f or

t he pur pose of engagi ng i n door - t o- door mi ni st r y. See Watcht ower

I , 634 F. 3d at 10. I t i s agai nst t hi s backdr op t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s

compl ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r emedi al scheme

unconst i t ut i onal l y r est r i cts t hei r expr essi ve acti vi t i es. However ,

t hei r compl ai nt must t ake i nt o account t hat t he pr ophyl axi s of t he

Fi r st Amendment i s not unbounded. Reasonabl e t i me, pl ace, and

manner r est r i ct i ons ar e per mi ssi bl e. See Pl easant Gr ove Ci t y v.

Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 469 ( 2009) . Such r est r i ct i ons wi l l be uphel d

so l ong as t hey ar e cont ent - neut r al , nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a

si gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est , and l eave adequat e al t er nat i ve

5 The di st r i ct cour t , l i ke t he par t i es, t r eat ed our st at ement sabout r el i ef as bi ndi ng. See supr a not e 3. Consi st ent wi t h t he

cl ar i f i cat i on t hat we make t oday, we di r ect t he di st r i ct cour t , onr emand, t o st r i ke paragr aph 6 of i t s March 2013 j udgment . To t heext ent t hat t he di st r i ct cour t f i nds t hat t he t er ms of par agr aph 6ar e j ust i f i ed wi t hout r egar d t o our mandat e, i t i s f r ee upon r emandt o modi f y the i nj unct i on t o rei nt r oduce a requi r ement t hat unmannedur bani zat i ons show speci al j ust i f i cat i on f or f ai l i ng t o conver t t oa manned gat e.

- 18-


19/29

channel s of communi cat i on open t o t he speaker . See War d v. Rock

Agai nst Raci sm, 491 U. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) .

The r emedy cr af t ed by t he di st r i ct cour t passes must er

under t hi s paradi gm. We assume, as do t he par t i es, t hat t he

mi ni mal r est r i ct i ons i mposed on pl ai nt i f f ' s speech "are j ust i f i ed

wi t hout r ef er ence t o [ i t s] cont ent . " War d, 491 U. S. at 791

( quot i ng Cl ar k v. Cmt y. f or Cr eat i ve Non- Vi ol ence, 468 U. S. 288,

293 ( 1984) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . To t he extent t hat

t he r emedi al scheme condi t i ons access t o t he ur bani zat i ons on t he

cont ent of t he pl ai nt i f f s' speech, t hat i s a condi t i on consi st ent

wi t h t he r i ght of access t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m.

Si mi l ar l y, t he remedi al scheme opens t he ver y channel of

communi cat i on t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s seek t o pur sue. Mor eover , i t i s

nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o st r i ke a bal ance bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f s'

si gni f i cant i nt er est i n accessi ng publ i c str eet s t o car r y out t hei r

mi ni st r y and t he gover nment ' s si gni f i cant i nt er est i n t he secur i t y

of r esi dent s. As we expl ai ned i n Watcht ower I , t he CAL "was

prompt ed by and adopt ed agai nst a backgr ound of endemi c vi ol ent

cr i me, " i ncl udi ng dr ug deal i ng and an unusual l y hi gh homi ci de r at e.

634 F. 3d at 6. These secur i t y concer ns wei gh heavi l y i n t he Fi r st

Amendment anal ysi s.

Even t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s l ament t hat shar i ng a si ngl e

key among thei r adher ent s wi l l cr eat e l ogi st i cal pr obl ems and

i nhi bi t spont aneous speech, t hi s l ament over st at es the mat t er . The

- 19-


20/29

di st r i ct cour t , f aced wi t h a di f f i cul t quandar y, devi sed a

pr acti cal sol ut i on. Whi l e t he cour t ' s sol ut i on ent ai l s shar i ng a

key among per sons havi ng a common mi ssi on, t hat r equi r ement i s not

especi al l y oner ous, and t he r esul t i ng bur den on t he pl ai nt i f f s'

speech i s mi ni mal .

At any rat e, t hi s mi ni mal bur den i s of f set t o some extent

by benef i t s i nher ent i n t he r emedi al scheme. The i nj unct i on

ent i t l es t he pl ai nt i f f s t o r ound- t he- cl ock access t o unmanned

ur bani zat i ons, on a l evel equal t o t hat of r esi dent s. Thi s quant um

of access exceeds t he const i t ut i onal mi ni mum. Cf . Bl ( a) ck Tea

Soc' y, 378 F. 3d at 13- 14 ( uphol di ng subst ant i al l i mi t at i ons on use

of publ i c st r eet s and si dewal ks near pol i t i cal convent i on) .

I ndeed, i t i s har d t o i magi ne a l ess speech- r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve

t hat woul d st i l l ef f ect i vel y ser ve t he gover nment ' s i nt er est i n

r esi dent i al secur i t y.

The pl ai nt i f f s al so chal l enge t he geogr aphi c br eadt h of

t he i nj unct i on. The r emedy, t hey say, i s not i sl and- wi de and,

t hus, does not pr ovi de t hem wi t h access t o ever y unmanned

ur bani zat i on i n Puer t o Ri co. Thi s shor t f al l , however , i s of t he

pl ai nt i f f s' own cont r i vance: i t was t hei r deci si on t o sue onl y a

r epr esent at i ve sampl i ng of muni ci pal i t i es t hat aut hor i zed unmanned

ur bani zat i ons. Had t hey accept ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nvi t at i on

and sued al l of t he af f ect ed muni ci pal i t i es, t he geogr aphi c br eadt h

of t he r emedy woul d not be an i ssue.

- 20-


21/29

The pl ai nt i f f s t r y t o char act er i ze t he need t o f i l e

addi t i onal l awsui t s agai nst ot her muni ci pal i t i es as a pr i or

r estr ai nt . Thi s char act er i zat i on i s f anci f ul . I n t he Fi r st

Amendment cont ext , a pr i or r est r ai nt i s a rest r ai nt i mposed by the

gover nment . See, e. g. , Neb. Pr ess Ass' n v. St uar t , 427 U. S. 539,

543- 44 ( 1976) ; Shut t l eswor t h v. Ci t y of Bi r mi ngham, 394 U. S. 147,

156 ( 1969) . The har m of whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s now compl ai n i s not

t he r esul t of a pr i or r est r ai nt i mposed by a cour t or gover nment

agency but , r at her , r esul t s f r omt he pl ai nt i f f s' consi der ed choi ce

t o sue f ewer t han al l t he host muni ci pal i t i es.

By t he same t oken, we r ej ect t he pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument

t hat t he bur den of shar i ng keys const i t ut es a pr i or r est r ai nt .

Shar i ng keys i s a r easonabl e r est r i ct i on on t he manner of af f or di ng

access to publ i c st r eet s wi t hi n t he ur bani zat i ons. As such, i t i s

no mor e a pr i or r est r ai nt t han t he r egi me f or whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s

advocat e on appeal : r equi r i ng an i ndi vi dual t o st op at a sent r y

boot h, i dent i f y her sel f t o a guar d, and st at e t he pur pose of her

pl anned ent r y. See Watcht ower I , 634 F. 3d at 13- 14 ( concl udi ng

t hat manned- gat e ar r angement woul d pass const i t ut i onal must er ) .

Li ke t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he muni ci pal def endant s chal l enge

t he mer i t s of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r emedi al scheme. Thei r

chal l enge can be di st i l l ed t o a cl ai m t hat t he i nj unct i on i mposes

undue admi ni st r at i ve bur dens upon muni ci pal i t i es ( f or exampl e,

col l ect i ng and di st r i but i ng keys and keepi ng t r ack of changes i n

- 21-


22/29

modes of access) . Thi s chal l enge i s f or t he most par t easi l y

r ebuf f ed.

A hal l mar k of equi t y i s t he br oad f l exi bi l i t y t hat i s

avai l abl e t o t he chancel l or i n t he f ashi oni ng of r emedi es. See

Hecht Co. v. Bowl es, 321 U. S. 321, 329- 30 ( 1944) . Her e, t he r ecord

makes mani f est t hat t he r emedi al scheme i s not so bur densome as t o

const i t ut e an abuse of di scr et i on. Pr esent ed wi t h evi dence t hat

conver si on t o manned gates woul d be pr ohi bi t i vel y expensi ve f or

many unmanned ur bani zat i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t cr af t ed a l ess-

cost l y anodyne t hat pr ovi des t he pl ai nt i f f s wi t h near l y unf et t er ed

access t o such ur bani zat i ons.

Whi l e t hi s anodyne r equi r es some admi ni st r at i on by

muni ci pal i t i es, t hose added dut i es ar e not si gni f i cant l y vexat i ous.

Af t er al l , i t i s t he CAL, not t he di st r i ct cour t , whi ch pl aced t he

muni ci pal i t i es at t he hel m of t he per mi t t i ng pr ocess. See P. R.

Laws Ann. t i t . 23, 64, 64b. Gi ven t hi s l egi sl at i ve j udgment , we

t hi nk that t he di str i ct cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n

addi ng a modest i ncr ement al bur den t o t he muni ci pal i t i es'

admi ni st r at i ve r ol e. See Rosar i o- Tor r es, 889 F. 2d at 323

( expl ai ni ng t hat "t he t r i al j udge, who has had f i r st - hand exposur e

t o t he l i t i gant s and t he evi dence, i s i n a consi der abl y bet t er

posi t i on t o br i ng t he scal es i nt o bal ance t han an appel l at e

t r i bunal ") .

- 22-


23/29

Ther e i s, however , a smal l except i on t o t hi s anal ysi s.

The l ast sent ence of paragraph f our of t he Mar ch 2013 j udgment

r equi r es muni ci pal i t i es t o del i ver any new means of access t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s wi t hi n t went y- f our hour s of any change. Thi s condi t i on

woul d i mpose an unf ai r bur den on muni ci pal i t i es i f , f or exampl e,

t he means of access ar e changed on a weekend when muni ci pal of f i ces

ar e cl osed. Accor di ngl y, we vacat e t hi s por t i on ( "wi t hi n t went y-

f our hour s of t he change") of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r emedi al or der .

The cour t i s f r ee on r emand t o i mpose a l ess bur densome r ul e wi t h

a si mi l ar goal , such as a requi r ement t hat muni ci pal i t i es del i ver

t he new means of access t o t he pl ai nt i f f s on t he next busi ness day.

E. Dismissal of Commonwealth Defendants.

Next , t he pl ai nt i f f s assai l t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sua

spont e di smi ssal of t he Commonweal t h def endants. Had t he cour t

kept t hose def endant s i n t he case, t he pl ai nt i f f s say, i t woul d

have been abl e t o f ashi on a more sal ubr i ous i sl and- wi de r emedy.

Sua spont e di smi ssal s, whi ch by def i ni t i on ar e ent er ed on

t he cour t ' s own i ni t i at i ve and wi t hout advance not i ce or an

oppor t uni t y t o be hear d, ar e di sf avor ed. See Gonzl ez- Gonzl ez v.

Uni t ed St at es, 257 F. 3d 31, 36- 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; Ber kovi t z v.

Home Box Of f i ce, I nc. , 89 F. 3d 24, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

Never t hel ess, a sua spont e di smi ssal wi l l not be set asi de wher e

t he aggr i eved par t y cannot show any pr ej udi ce. See Vi ves v.

Faj ar do, 472 F. 3d 19, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

- 23-


24/29

I n t hi s i nst ance, t he pl ai nt i f f s cannot show a smi dgen of

pr ej udi ce. When t he sua spont e di smi ssal was quest i oned, t he

di st r i ct cour t pr udent l y i nvi t ed br i ef i ng on t he under l yi ng i ssues

and r econsi der ed i t s act i on. The ent r y of a new or der of di smi ssal

af t er r econsi der at i on ef f ect i vel y cur ed any pr ej udi ce. See Cur l ey

v. Per r y, 246 F. 3d 1278, 1284 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001) ; Wi nt ers v. Di amond

Shamr ock Chem. Co. , 149 F. 3d 387, 402 ( 5t h Ci r . 1998) .

Our hol di ng t hat t he or der of di smi ssal i s not subj ect t o

r ever sal on pr ocedur al gr ounds does not end t he i nqui r y. The

pl ai nt i f f s submi t t hat t her e was no val i d basi s f or t he di smi ssal

of t he Commonweal t h def endants. I n t hei r vi ew, t he Commonweal t h' s

par t i ci pat i on i n a r emedi al scheme i s necessar y t o af f or d compl et e

r el i ef . Thi s amount s to a cl ai m t hat t he Commonweal t h def endant s

ar e r equi r ed par t i es. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 19( a) ( 1) ( A) .

We r ej ect t he pl ai nt i f f s' i mpor t uni ngs. A par t y i s a

necessar y par t y wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of Rul e 19( a) ( 1) ( A) onl y i f , "i n

t hat per son' s absence, t he cour t cannot accor d compl et e r el i ef

among exi st i ng par t i es. " Rel i ef i s compl et e when i t meani ngf ul l y

r esol ves t he cont est ed mat t er as bet ween t he af f ect ed par t i es. See

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 19 advi sor y commi t t ee note t o 1966 amend. ; Al t o v.

Bl ack, 738 F. 3d 1111, 1126 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) . To be compl ete,

however , t he r el i ef need not al i gn exact l y wi t h t he r emedy sought

by t he pl ai nt i f f . See Sal t Lake Tr i bune Publ ' g Co. v. AT&T Cor p. ,

320 F. 3d 1081, 1097 ( 10t h Ci r . 2003) . As l ong as a par t y' s absence

- 24-


25/29

does not pr event t he di st r i ct cour t f r omaf f or di ng compl et e r el i ef ,

Rul e 19( a) ( 1) ( A) does not mandat e t hat par t y' s cont i nui ng

presence. 6 See Bacar d I nt ' l Lt d. v. V. Sur ez & Co. , 719 F. 3d 1,

10 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 640 ( 2013) .

I n t hi s case, we det ect no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat compl et e rel i ef as bet ween t he mai n pr ot agoni st s

t he pl ai nt i f f s and t he muni ci pal i t i es can be accompl i shed wi t hout

t he i nvol vement of t he Commonweal t h def endants. See Wi l l i ams v.

Fanni ng, 332 U. S. 490, 494 ( 1947) ( hol di ng t hat absent par t y i s not

i ndi spensabl e i f r el i ef - gr ant i ng decr ee i s ef f ect i ve wi t hout

r equi r i ng t hat par t y "t o do a si ngl e t hi ng") . The cour t ' s r emedi al

scheme r edr esses t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons i n t he communi t i es

t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s j oi ned i n t hei r sui t , and no acti on by t he

Commonweal t h i s needed f or t he muni ci pal def endant s t o i mpl ement

t hat r emedy. Sur el y, t he presence of t he Commonweal t h def endants

i s not r equi r ed i n or der f or t he muni ci pal def endant s t o, say,

col l ect and di st r i but e keys, moni t or compl i ance, and sanct i on

of f ender s.

Of cour se, t he f act t hat an ot her wi se pr oper def endant i s

not a necessary par t y does not mean t hat i t must be di smi ssed f r om

t he case. But wher e, as her e, cer t ai n def endant s ar e di spensabl e

par t i es whose pr esence i s not r equi r ed t o af f or d compl et e r el i ef ,

6 The pl ai nt i f f s' assi gnment of er r or i mpl i cat es onl y Rul e19( a) ( 1) ( A) . They do not cont end t hat t he Commonweal t h def endantsar e r equi r ed par t i es under Rul e 19( a) ( 1) ( B) .

- 25-


26/29

t he t r i al cour t may, i n t he exer ci se of i t s sound di scret i on,

di smi ss t hem. See Comm. f or Pub. Educ. & Rel i gi ous Li ber t y v.

Rockef el l er , 322 F. Supp. 678, 686 ( S. D. N. Y. 1971) ( ci t i ng Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 21) . So vi ewed, t he i ssue r educes to whet her t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on t o f ashi on a r emedi al scheme t hat does not i nvol ve

t he Commonweal t h def endant s i s an abuse of di scr et i on. We t hi nk

not .

Faced wi t h t he need t o remedy ongoi ng const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i ons, t he di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y coul d have chosen t o

amel i or ate t hose vi ol at i ons by a decr ee addr essed ei t her t o t he

muni ci pal i t i es or t o t he Commonweal t h def endant s. Ther e are

advant ages and di sadvant ages to ei t her al t er nat i ve. Gi ven t hi s

choi ce, we bel i eve t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wi t hi n i t s

di scret i on i n sel ect i ng t he muni ci pal i t i es as t he medi um f or

ef f ect uat i ng r el i ef . Once t hi s sel ect i on was made, t he

Commonweal t h def endant s became super f l uous. And whi l e t he ensui ng

i mpl ement at i on of t he remedi al scheme has had i t s chal l enges, t hose

chal l enges cannot f ai r l y be at t r i but ed t o t he absence of t he

Commonweal t h def endant s. I ndeed, t he Commonweal t h def endant s have

assured us, bot h at or al ar gument and i n a l et t er submi t t ed

pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 28( j ) , t hat t he

- 26-


27/29

Puer t o Ri co pol i ce ar e awar e of t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s of t he

pl ai nt i f f s and ar e under or der s t o assi st t hem. 7

I n any event , t he di st r i ct cour t wi sel y l ef t open t he

possi bi l i t y of f ut ur e par t i ci pat i on i n t he case by the Commonweal t h

def endant s. See Wat cht ower I I , 712 F. 3d at 12- 13. As a pr act i cal

mat t er , t he di smi ssal of t he Commonweal t h def endant s oper at ed

wi t hout pr ej udi ce. I f t he di str i ct cour t , i n l i ght of unf ol di ng

event s, wer e t o concl ude t hat i t i s desi r abl e t o have t he

Commonweal t h def endant s bef ore t he cour t i n or der t o af f ord

ef f ect i ve r el i ef , i t possesses t he f l exi bi l i t y t o t ake cor r ect i ve

act i on. See Amado, 517 F. 2d at 1360.

F. A Loose End.

Ther e i s one pr obl em t hat shoul d not be l ef t f or f ut ur e

consi der at i on. Up t o t hi s poi nt , t he di st r i ct cour t has r equi r ed

unmanned ur bani zat i ons seeki ng except i ons t o t he r emedi al scheme t o

speak t o t he cour t t hr ough t he muni ci pal def endant s. We t hi nk t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t , not t he af f ected muni ci pal i t y, i s t he

appr opr i at e ar bi t er of whet her good cause exi st s i n any gi ven

i nst ance f or an except i on t o t he r emedi al scheme. I f a par t i cul ar

ur bani zat i on bel i eves t hat i t can i dent i f y pecul i ar ci r cumst ances

r ender i ng t he cur r ent r emedy i nequi t abl e as appl i ed t o i t s

7 The pl ai nt i f f s make much of t hr ee i nst ances i n whi chCommonweal t h pol i ce al l egedl y f ai l ed t o act f ol l owi ng r epor t s t hatJ ehovah' s Wi t nesses wer e deni ed access t o manned ur bani zat i ons.Thi s t el l s us not hi ng, however , as t o t he ef f i cacy of t he di st r i ctcour t ' s r emedi al scheme vi s- - vi s unmanned ur bani zat i ons.

- 27-


28/29

communi t y, i t shoul d be per mi t t ed t o pr esent such evi dence to t he

cour t or t o a cour t - appoi nt ed speci al mast er . See Fed. R. Ci v. P.

53(a)(1)(C).

III. CONCLUSION

We caut i on t hat t he cur r ent r emedi al scheme shoul d not be

r egarded as i mmut abl e. Our endorsement r est s on t he underst andi ng

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t , ei t her di r ectl y or t hr ough a speci al

mast er , wi l l under t ake per i odi c r evi ews of t he scheme' s oper at i on.

Exper i ence i s a good t eacher , and exper i ence wi t h t he r emedi al

scheme may show t hat i mprovement s ar e i n or der . So, t oo, changi ng

ci r cumst ances ( i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o t echnol ogi cal advances

t hat may make r emedi es such as "vi r t ual guar ds" f i nanci al l y

f easi bl e) may al t er t he bal ance of har dshi ps. The di st r i ct cour t

i s i n the best posi t i on t o ensur e that t he remedi al scheme remai ns

bot h equi t abl e and ef f ect i ve i n pr act i ce and, i f not , t o t weak i t . 8

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dat ed above,

we af f i r m t he subst ance of t he Mar ch 2013 i nj unct i on ( but di r ect

t he vacat i on of par agr aph 6 and t he l ast por t i on of par agr aph 4

t her eof ) , af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal wi t hout pr ej udi ce

of t he Commonweal t h def endants, and r emand f or f ur t her proceedi ngs

8 We note t hat t he par t i es cl ai m t o have encount er ed someprobl ems i n i mpl ement i ng t he r emedi al scheme. We l eave t o t hedi st r i ct cour t t he t ask of det er mi ni ng whet her t hese pr obl emsr equi r e t he scheme to be modi f i ed.

- 28-


29/29

consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Al l par t i es shal l bear t hei r own

costs.

So Ordered.

- 29-

watchtower bible and tract soc v. somoza colombani, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents