Professional Documents
Culture Documents
South Carolina Association v. Rocky Disabato, 4th Cir. (2012)
South Carolina Association v. Rocky Disabato, 4th Cir. (2012)
No. 10-1540
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00271-CMC)
Argued:
Decided:
January 4, 2012
(SCASA)
judgment
seeks
action
to
reinstate
against
radio
its
federal
personality
Rocky
Carolinas
Freedom
unconstitutional
corporation.
of
as
Information
applied
to
Act
it
as
(SC
a
FOIA)
declared
purportedly
public
of
the
earlier-filed
state
suit
was
appropriate
under
I.
SCASA is a non-profit corporation that views itself as a
leading force for public education in South Carolina . . . .
J.A. 5.
things,
education
legislation
and
policy
and
J.A. 5.
Governor
requiring
former
government
for
Mark
Sanford
Governor
federal
seeking
Sanford
funds,
to
writ
apply
including
to
of
the
mandamus
federal
approximately
$780
In June
SCASA
discussing
the
American
Recovery
and
with
references
Governor Sanford.
to
SCASAs
lawsuit
against
former
J.A. 41.
Nevertheless,
J.A. 41.
SCASA received
On
February
declaratory
judgment
unconstitutional
corporation. 1
2,
as
2010,
SCASA,
action
applied
in
turn,
contending
to
it
as
brought
that
a
the
SC
federal
FOIA
purportedly
was
public
Relative
to
non-profit
corporations
engaged
in
political speech and issue advocacy, such as SCASA,
the FOIAs broad record disclosure requirements chill
the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the FOIAs
broad
record
disclosure
requirements
chill
the
exercise of First Amendment rights, and the FOIAs
open meeting requirements and vague application to any
corporation supported in whole or in part by public
funds constitute prior restraints on freedom of speech
and association.
J.A. 4.
Instead
of
answering
SCASAs
federal
complaint,
Disabato
SCASA
opposed
court
the
motion.
On
April
22,
2010,
the
district
SCASA appeals.
II.
We
review
district
abstention
decision
principles
to
for
decline
jurisdiction
based
discretion.
2006).
on
courts
abuse
499
omitted).
in
of
F.3d
360,
363
(4th
Cir.
2007)
Martin v.
(quotation
marks
case
requirements.
which
does
not
meet
traditional
abstention
articulated
abstention
claims:
three-part
test
Absent
few
Id. at 51.
for
Later cases
evaluating
extraordinary
Younger
exceptions,
substantial
progress
in
the
federal
proceeding;
that
(2)
(3)
provides
challenges.
adequate
opportunity
to
raise
constitutional
the
context
Supreme
of
civil
Court
did
not
proceedings.
address
But
the
abstention
Supreme
in
Court
the
later
Sch.,
proceedings).
Inc.,
477
U.S.
619
(1986)
(administrative
627.
The Supreme Courts application of Younger abstention in
Pennzoil is particularly relevant to our analysis here.
In that
it
appeared
that
only
way
Texaco
Under Texas
could
prevent
Id. at 5.
Texas
bond
and
lien
requirements
would
deny
Id. at 6.
it
various
Texaco sought
the
courts.
Id.
case.
The
affirmed,
judgment
pending
appeal
to
the
Texas
appellate
injunctive
court
relief
granted,
for
and
Texaco.
the
appellate
Id.
at
court
7-9.
The
This
pending
state
proceedings
are
criminal,
but
also
when
its
opinion
does
Id. at 11.
not
hold
that
abstention
is
Id. at 14 n.12.
courts will have to work out for themselves what limits, if any,
there are on the sweep of Younger.
Juris. 4254 (3d ed. 2011).
Younger
proceeding,
(2)
test:
did
the
(1)
was
proceeding
there
an
implicate
ongoing
state
important
state
is satisfied . . . .
J.A. 83.
to
raise
Plaintiffs
its
various
First
Amendment
alternative
defenses
arguments
J.A. 83.
in
may,
state
court.
likewise,
be
Amendment
arguments
to
dismiss,
underlying
its
federal
complaint
arguing
that
Disabatos
claim
must
fail
because
the
FOIAs
definition
of
public
body
cannot
speech
that
or
the
issue
FOIAs
advocacy.
definition
In
of
other
words,
public
body
SCASA
.
J.A. 108.
Notably,
dismissed
the
state
Disabatos
court
suit.
granted
The
state
SCASAs
court
held
motion
and
that
the
political
substantial
speech
relation
to
and
the
issue
purpose
of
advocacy
the
FOIA,
without
and
where
As
J.A. 119.
important
that
interpreting
and
the
state
state
applying
interests.
has
FOIA,
The
district
significant
including
court
interests
with
regard
in
to
J.A. 83.
Code.
Ann.
30-4-15.
And
South
Carolinas
Attorney
stage,
stating
that
he
has
strong
interest
in
J.A. 123.
10
where
express
statute
is
constitutional
flagrantly
prohibitions
and
in
patently
every
violative
clause,
of
sentence
unusual
relief.
here.
circumstance
Id. at 54.
that
would
call
for
equitable
We cannot agree.
in
private
so
far
as
its
corporations
definition
engaging
J.A. 12.
in
of
public
political
body
speech
violative
of
express
constitutional
prohibitions
in
Younger,
11
(This appears to
SCASA does not
contend that Disabato is a straw man for another party who has
previously brought SC FOIA claims against it.
parties
is
appropriate
in
evaluating
its
harassment
III.
In sum, SCASA has already obtained the relief it sought
with this federal suit through its participation in an earlierfiled
state
suit. 3
The
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
12