Challenge to law barring ex-felons from visiting prisons survives with deep cuts

Activists are suing California over a state law that bars ex-felons from visiting prison grounds.(CN) — A legal challenge to a California law barring ex-felons from visiting prisons or nearby grounds cleared a legal hurdle this week, though only barely, after a federal judge dismissed large portions of the lawsuit but declined to dismiss it altogether.William Brown, also known as Minister King X, is an activist who regularly organizes and attends protests outside of prisons. He has at least one prior felony conviction.After attending a demonstration outside the California State Medical Facility in 2021, he was charged with violating California Penal Code section 4571, which bars anyone who has been convicted of a felony from setting foot on prison grounds “or lands belonging or adjacent thereto” unless they have permission from the warden.After being released from jail, King says in his complaint that his parole officer told him “he would not be prosecuted for any parole violations but that he should not violate the law by being in the vicinity of any prisons or jails.”Brown sued the state, arguing the law violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. He also claims the law is unconstitutionally vague, overly broad and violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.Brown was joined in his suit by advocacy group All of Us or None or AOUON, which represents formerly incarcerated individuals in the Bay Area.The nonprofit claims that more than 200 people have been jailed for violating section 4571. In the complaint, the group cites two unnamed AOUON members who it says have avoided visiting incarcerated family and friends for fear arrest.The lawsuit was already dismissed once for lack of standing, while Governor Gavin Newsom was dismissed as a defendant. The plaintiffs were allowed to refile, which they did last year.In their new motion to dismiss, officials with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation argued that King did not have any “concrete plan” to violate the law and that there was no “realistic danger” he would be arrested again. They pointed out that King “could avoid violating the law — and therefore face no risk of enforcement” by obtaining permission from a warden prior to attending a protest.In his ruling, dated Aug. 26, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta agreed to dismiss most of the lawsuit’s causes of action, many of them for lack of standing.Three of those claims were based on the 2021 arrest. Calabretta, a Joe Biden appointee, found that King hadn’t “shown how a prospective injunction will redress harms that occurred nearly four years ago.” He also dismissed the overbreadth challenge for lack of standing. And while the judge agreed that section 4571 “implicates conduct that has an expressive element,” he found that “the majority of the statute’s applications are directed at those who do not seek to engage in expression,” meaning the law isn’t overbroad.But Calabretta did allow one cause of action to survive: the claim that section 4571 is unconstitutionally vague because of the clause reading, “or lands belonging or adjacent thereto.”“Given the number of facilities to which the law applies, some of which are in urban areas with a relatively small footprint, and some in more rural areas with a conceivably less clear footprint, the Court finds it plausible at this stage of the proceedings that a person of ordinary intelligence would not understand what conduct is prohibited by section 4571,” Calabretta wrote. “The state points to no limiting principle that would guide how a reasonable person would construe the word ‘adjacent.’ Accordingly, [the] court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly stated a vagueness claim at this stage.”The plaintiffs will have yet another opportunity to file an amended complaint.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads