Case 1:16-cv-01368-JDB Document 13 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTIAN W. SANDVIG et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:16-cv-1368 (JDB) v. LORETTA LYNCH, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case 1:16-cv-01368-JDB Document 13 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2 LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 6 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7 I. The Challenged Provision as applied to the plaintiffs restricts their speech, triggering First Amendment scrutiny ............................................................................ 7 A. The Challenged Provision is not a traditional trespass law .............................. 9 B. The Challenged Provision implicates the right to record or preserve information on the internet.............................................................................. 10 C. The Challenged Provision implicates the right to engage in false speech or misrepresentation ............................................................................................ 14 D. The Challenged Provision implicates the right to publish .............................. 17 II. The plaintiffs have standing to raise their claims ....................................................... 18 A. The plaintiffs have alleged that they intend to engage in constitutionally protected speech that violates the Challenged Provision ................................ 19 B. The plaintiffs have standing because the government has not sufficiently disavowed prosecution for terms-of-service violations .................................. 23 III. The plaintiffs have stated a claim under the First Amendment to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................... 30 A. The Challenged Provision as applied to the plaintiffs cannot survive strict or intermediate scrutiny .................................................................................. 30 B. The plaintiffs have stated a claim that the Challenged Provision is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. ............................................. 34 IV. The plaintiffs have stated a claim that the Challenged Provision is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment. ...................................................................... 35 V. The plaintiffs have stated a claim that the Challenged Provision represents an unconstitutional delegation of authority to private entities......................................... 40 VI. The plaintiffs have stated a claim that the Challenged Provision violates the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. .................................................................... 42 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 44 i Case 1:16-cv-01368-JDB Document 13 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 49 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 766 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 16 A.N.S.W.E.R. v. D.C., 589 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 19, 23 ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)............................................................ 11, 31 ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 20 ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) ..................................................................... 20 Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ......................................................... 6 Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................... 12 Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter, 118 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (D. Idaho 2015) ................. 16, 17, 33 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) ................................................................................. 20, 38 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 7 Ass’n of Am. Railroads v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 721 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ........................ 41 Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) .......................... 18, 22, 24, 26 Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964)......................................................................................... 36 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) .................................................................................... 17 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................... 6 Biener v. Calio, 361 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 41 Blum v. Holder, 744 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 26 Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014) ............................................................................. 29 Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) ................................................................ 43 Brewer v. District of Columbia, 891 F.Supp.2d 126 (D.D.C. 2012) .............................................. 7 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) .............................................................................. 35 California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) ................................ 43 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) .......................................................................... 40 Chamber of Commerce v. FEC, 69 F.3d 600 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .................................................... 29 Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) .............................................................................. 43 Cirelli v. Town of Johnston Sch. Dist., 897 F. Supp. 663 (D.R.I. 1995) ...................................... 12 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) ................................................................ 26 Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) ................................................. 31 Coal. for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ............................... 6 Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) ....................................................................... 13 CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 597 F. App’x 116 (3d Cir. 2015) ........................ 27, 38 Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ..................................................................... 36 Connell v. Town of Hudson, 733 F. Supp. 465 (D.N.H. 1990) ..................................................... 12 Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) ................................. 33 Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty. Television, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002) ............. 12 Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. Railroads, 135 S. Ct. 1225 (2015) ........................................... 41 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003) ....................................... 27, 37 ii Case 1:16-cv-01368-JDB Document 13 Filed 10/07/16 Page 4 of 49 Emergency Coal. to Defend Educ. Travel v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 545 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................................................... 22 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) ...................................................... 36 Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989) ....................................................................................... 31 Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................ 12 Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 ................................................................ 8 Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 11 Glik v. Cunliffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 12 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ....................................................................... 36 Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) ......................................................... 30, 32 Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 6 Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) ........................................... 36 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...................................................... 23, 26 Houchins v. KQED,