Court: Ordinance restricting day laborers' speech unconstitutional

[alp227]

Source: CNN

Los Angeles (CNN) -- The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional an ordinance in a southern California town that prevented day laborers on public sidewalks from soliciting work from passing drivers.

"Because the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to achieve the city's goals, it is facially unconstitutional," the court said in a 9-2 decision.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, MALDEF, called the decision "precedent-setting."

It affirmed a trial court's decision favoring the day laborer group Comite de Jornaleros in its lawsuit against the city of Redondo Beach.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/16/california.day.laborers.ruling/index.html

[Liberty Belle]

1. Good to see a win for working people.

[cstanleytech]

2. Dont cheer to much, I'm sure they are working to get around it and will

even resort to the slightest infraction of law say and they will then learn by 'accident' if someone is illegally here and then use the excuse that they dont have constitutional rights and just arrest them.

[tcaudilllg]

3. Nah

[No Elephants]

4. Few things are better than a liberal court decision. What will Phony Tony do with this, though?

[coalition_unwilling]

5. "Facially unconstitutional"??? - That's the first I've ever heard that

phrase. I guess in this brave new world we inhabit there is no further need for copy editors and proof readers.

Prima facie?

Factually?

Facially????

WTF???

[pinboy3niner]

6. I took it to mean unconstitutional "on its face"

I wonder what DU's legal eagles think about it. I doubt it's the first time that term has been used by a court.

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Jesus, if that's the language the Court used in its decision (and not

some ill-educated reporter's flub), the judges need to take a refresher course in grammar and usage, imho.

[Hosnon]

8. It's a term of art. The law, like any discipline, has its own vernacular.

Learn it before you say something stupid next time.

[COLGATE4]

11. +1

[COLGATE4]

10. No - it is a legal term of art. It has a specific, legal meaning which

is clear to anyone dealing with it in a legal setting. Not a question of grammar and/or useage.

[coalition_unwilling]

14. OK. Still sounded like fingernails scraping down a chalkboard to

me, probably because it verges on a mixed metaphor, i.e., a constitution does not have a face.

[COLGATE4]

9. "Facially unconstitutional" is a legal term, which means that the law, on its face does not

pass Constitutional muster. It is the opposite of "Unconstitutional as applied" (more often the case) where a simple reading of what the law says does not allow you to say if it's constitutional or not - you have to see evidence of how the law is being applied to determine its constitutionality.

[pinboy3niner]

12. Thank you and Hosnon for that legal perspective

:patriot:

[Posteritatis]

13. So it basically means "this is unconstitutional from the basic wording on down"? (nt)