Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp.

2000-01-12

Headline: Limits on public access to arrestees' addresses survive a broad, across-the-board First Amendment challenge as the Court reverses lower courts, making it harder for publishers to strike down the law without an individual challenge focused on their specific situation.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for publishers to win broad, across-the-board challenges to access limits.
Allows states to limit access to government-held addresses without immediate First Amendment invalidation.
Leaves individualized as-applied challenges open for lower courts to decide on remand.

Topics: public records, freedom of information, commercial speech, journalism access

Summary

Background

The dispute involves the Los Angeles Police Department, which keeps arrest records, and United Reporting Publishing, a private company that sold names and addresses of recently arrested people to clients like lawyers and driving schools. California changed its public-records law in 1996 to limit release of arrestees’ current addresses unless a requester signs a declaration that the purpose is scholarly, journalistic, political, governmental, or investigative and that the address will not be used to sell a product or service. After the change, the company was denied address information, sued, and the District Court and Ninth Circuit held the law invalid on its face and enjoined enforcement.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the law could be struck down in a broad, across-the-board challenge. The Court’s majority said no: the statute regulates access to government-held information, not speech by people who already have the information, so the usual grounds for a sweeping facial attack do not apply. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s facial invalidation, noted the company did not try to qualify under the statute, and left any challenge to the law’s application to specific parties for the lower courts to consider on remand.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it harder for publishers and others to obtain an immediate, wholesale ruling against selective disclosure laws. States may limit access to certain government-held data without automatically violating the First Amendment, though affected parties can still bring narrow, as-applied challenges. The decision does not resolve those individualized claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg agreed the law is about access and warned against viewpoint discrimination; Justice Scalia emphasized that as-applied questions remain open; Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the denial targeted commercial speakers and should be invalidated.