Gupta v. Bonta

Docket number: 3:21-cv-09045 (N.D. Cal.); 2:21-cv-8104 (C.D. Cal.)

The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute has filed suit on behalf of 17 year-old Raj Gupta, challenging a new California law that would curtail free speech around virtually every clinic, hospital, and pharmacy in the state.

The state offered Gupta (along with other plaintiffs) a permanent injunction against enforcing the statute as written. This ensures that Californians are not at risk for prosecution for exercising their speech rights at public venues.

Background

The law, SB 742, was signed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2021 and was immediately put into effect. The bill was promoted as a tool to prevent antivaxxers from blocking access to vaccination sites, but it goes much further than this and infringes free speech. Due to an expansive definition for “harassing,”  SB 742 criminalizes “knowingly approach[ing]” within 30 feet of any person in order to pass a leaflet, display a sign, protest, educate, or counsel—when the person is within 100 feet of the entrance to any vaccination site.

Plaintiff Raj Gupta agrees that access to vaccination sites should be ensured. In fact, he demonstrated in support of the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 outside of pharmacies. To avoid potential transmission of droplets, Gupta demonstrated silently using handbills—but this speech activity would now be criminal. People obviously cannot pass handbills from 30 feet away.

As a young advocate for the First Amendment, on October 12 Raj Gupta filed suit in the Central District of California (in Los Angeles) through his father and guardian, Ananda Gupta. Raj hopes to strike down provisions that UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh opined would be “clearly unconstitutional.”

Raj agrees with Prof. Volokh that “it’s pretty shocking that a state legislature would try to enact this kind of restriction on fully protected speech this way.” On its face, the law outlaws any kind of signature-gathering, evangelizing, protesting, or campaigning at thousands of retail locations in California, including many grocery stores, which frequently contain pharmacies. Violators could face a $1,000 fine or six months in jail for criminal “harassment” like approaching someone to ask for a signature. Corporations could even use the law to exclude unwanted protestors by offering their employees on-site flu vaccines.

Not only does the restriction—a 30-foot “bubble”—greatly exceed the limits zones previously upheld as constitutional, SB 742 discriminates against the content of speech. The law specifically carves out “labor dispute[s].” In other words, unions can picket a hospital—they could even demonstrate against vaccine mandates for employees!—but no other kind of speech is allowed. Favoring one type of message over another is an independent reason that SB 742 should be found unconstitutional.

California moved the case to the Northern District of California where Gupta filed his motion to preliminarily enjoin SB 742, and his reply in support of the motion. The case was stayed for two years until another plaintiff won permanent injunction. Gupta would have participated in that appeal, but the attorney general elected to stop defending a clearly unconstitutional bill.

The attorney general’s office offered Gupta the permament injunction he sougth against enforcing SB 742. Gupta and the other prevailing plaintiffs thereby ensured that Californians cannot be charged for protesting, petitioning, or displaying signs around pharmacies, clinics, and grocery stores in the state.

Case Documents