IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ACORN, USACTION, UNITED

:

FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, and

:

THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION :

FOR WOMEN,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF

:

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

and THE UNITED STATES

:

SECRET SERVICE OF THE

:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

:

SECURITY,

:

:

Defendants.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-4312

AMENDED COMPLAINT Introduction

1. Plaintiffs are organizations that regularly engage in peaceful political protest activities around the country, and often do so at public appearances by senior federal government officials. At these protests against federal government officials and policies, the defendant United States Secret Service, in conjunction with local police departments, violates what is perhaps the most fundamental of constitutional rights, the First Amendment right to express disagreement in a public forum with the policies of governmental officials.
2. The violation involves discrimination against “protesters,” a term used herein to describe people who criticize government officials or policies. The challenged practice requires that protesters who exercise their First Amendment right to picket, leaflet, chant or otherwise

peacefully express views criticizing the government do so in locations that are further away, or generally less desirable, than non-protesters. The discrimination takes two principal forms.
3. Under the first form, the protesters are moved further away from the location of the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that support the government to remain closer. Under the second form, everyone expressing a view -- either critical or supportive of the government – is moved further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express no view, to remain closer. Under both forms of the discrimination, protesters are typically segregated into what are commonly referred to as “protest zo nes.”
4. The protester discrimination has three practical consequences: a) it prevents governmental critics from gathering in traditional public areas where other members of the public are allowed to congregate; b) it insulates the government officials from seeing or hearing the protesters and vice- versa; and c) it gives to the media and the American public the appearance that there exists less dissent from the government official or his/her policies than there really is.
5. Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting the Secret Service from applying these unconstitutional measures to restrict peaceful political protest activity in public fora by plaintiffs and other protesters during future public appearances at any event where the Secret Service plays a role in arranging security.
6. Plaintiffs also seek to enforce against the City of Philadelphia Police Department the consent decree, signed by this Court in Pledge of Resistance v. We the People, Inc., CA-873975 (E.D. Pa. 1988, Fullam, C.J.), which already requires Philadelphia law enforcement
2

officials to treat protesters at appearances by the President or Vice President of the United States in the way plaintiffs now allege the United States Secret Service must do nationwide.
Jurisdiction 7. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 133l and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 220l and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 8. Plaintiff, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), is the nation’s largest community organization of low and moderate- income families, with over 150,000 member families organized into 700 neighborhood chapters in 51 cities across the country. ACORN’s priorities include: better housing for first-time-home buyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more investment in our communities from banks and governments, and better public schools. ACORN achieves its goals by building community organizations through direct action, negotiation, le gislation, and voter participation. ACORN has organized, and will continue to organize, protests across the country calling attention to the numerous ways in which the government’s policies are at odds with the needs of low- income people. 9. Plaintiff, USAction, is among the nation’s largest progressive activist organizations, dedicated to winning social and economic justice for all. The group represents over three million members in 33 affiliates. USAction’s priorities include advocating for
3

affordable healthcare for all, improving public education, promoting corporate responsibility, making the country’s tax system fairer for lower-income people, and opposing the war with Iraq. USAction achieves its goals through voter mobilization, legislative lobbying and direct actions, including protests. USAction has, through its affiliates, organized and participated in protests across the country, and will continue to do so.
10. Plaintiff United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is a coalition of more than 650 local groups and national organizations throughout the United States who have joined together to oppose the current administration’s policy of militarism and warfare, and to promote peace and economic justice. UFPJ’s priorities include educating the public about the current administration’s threat to civil liberties and immigrant’s rights and the dangers of globalization and nuclear proliferation. The organization promotes its agenda through public education, media efforts, campaigns directed at policy makers, and numerous protest activities. Founded in October 2002, UFPJ and its participating organizations have already helped organize hundreds of protests and rallies around the country, and organized the two largest demonstrations in the United States agains t the Iraq war. UFPJ intends to continue organizing and participating in protest activities against current and future administrations.
11. Plaintiff The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the country’s oldest and largest grassroots feminist organization, with over 500,000 contributing members in more than 450 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Since its inception in 1967, NOW’s purpose has been to take action to achieve full equality for women in all spheres of life including the economic, the social and the political. To that end, NOW and its local chapters engage in demonstrating, picketing, protesting, and marching, as well as voter education and voter
4

registration drives, direct and grassroots lobbying, bringing lawsuits, and participating in administrative rulemaking proceedings.
12. Defendant, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, is an incorporated municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All City of Philadelphia employees and officials identified in this complaint were at all relevant times operating under color of state law.
13. Defendant, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, is responsible for all law enforcement activities within the City of Philadelphia. All Philadelphia Police Department employees and officials identified in this complaint were at all relevant times operating under color of state law.
14. Defendant, THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, is the federal agency charged with, among other assignments, providing secur ity for the President and the Vice-President of the United States and other senior federal officials (“senior federal officials”).
FACTS 15. When senior federal officials travel, the Secret Service assumes responsibility for decisions about demonstrations, protests, and other activity protected by the First Amendment at any event involving those officials (“events”). 16. Although the Secret Service often works together with state, county, municipal and other federal law enforcement agencies, the Secret Service has the ultimate authority and responsibility for this task. 17. The Secret Service has a legal responsibility and a legitimate interest in protecting the security of senior federal officials.
5

18. The Secret Service has no legitimate interest in violating the First Amendment.

19.

In Philadelphia and elsewhere around the country, the Secret Service has, in

conjunction with local law enforcement officials, discriminated against and restricted protesters,

typically at events, particularly those attended by the President and the Vice-President. The

discriminatory practice requires that protesters who exercise their First Amendment right to

picket, leaflet, chant or otherwise peacefully express views criticizing the government do so in

locations that are further away, or generally less desirable, than non-protesters. The

discrimination takes two principal forms.

20. Under the first form, only the protesters are moved further away from the location

of the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that support the government

to remain closer.

21. Under the second form, everyone expressing a view -- either critical or supportive

of the government – is moved further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly

express no view, to remain closer. Under both forms of the discrimination, protesters are

typically segregated into what are commonly referred to as “protest zones.”

22. Frequently, these protest zones are located so far away, or positioned in such a

manner, that the protesters cannot see or hear the visiting federal official or people attending the

event, and vice versa.

23. The circumstances attending plaintiff ACORN’s attempted protest at President

Bush’s appearance in Philadelphia on July 24, 2003 -- which was the subject of an emergency

injunction order issued by this Court on that date -- are typical of the Secret Service’s protester

discrimination across the country.

6

24. The same practices to restrict protesters have been employed by the Secret Service, working with local police departments, many times throughout the country.
25. Excluding protesters from traditional public forums where Administration supporters, spectators and other members of the general public are allowed to congregate and relegating protesters to dis tant protest zones is not a tactic new to the current presidential administration.
26. The discriminatory practices against protesters during events where the Secret Service arranges security have occurred more frequently in the past two years.
27. The practice of discriminating against protesters violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and reflects a failure by the Secret Service to adequately train and/or supervise its local agents, employees and officials.
Philadelphia, Decembe r 12, 2002, Demonstration 28. In anticipation of a December 12, 2002, Presidential visit to Philadelphia, plaintiff USAction, through its local affiliate Citizens for Consumer Justice (CCJ), organized a demonstration to register opposition to President Bush’s proposed tax cuts, which it criticizes as benefiting only the wealthiest Americans. 29. CCJ contacted the Civil Affairs Unit of defendant Philadelphia Police Department, to apprise it of their intention to demonstrate in front of the Marriot Hotel located on Filbert Street, between 12th and 13th Streets, in Center City Philadelphia. 30. On December 12, 2002, when CCJ and its coalition partners arrived at 12th and Market, members of the Philadelphia Police Department informed them that protest was
7

permitted only behind barriers that the Department had erected on that intersection’s southeast corner.
31. CCJ and others who joined in the demonstration it organized immediately objected to this arrangement for two reasons: first, because the Presidential motorcade route would never pass that intersection, turning as it did from 12th onto Filbert to reach the hotel’s main entrance, a full block north of the Department’s cornered-off intersection; and second because plaintiff could observe that other members of the pub lic were allowed free access, without going through any visible security measures, to the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the hotel’s entrance on 12th and Filbert streets.
32. These objections were lodged with Captain William Fisher, the Philadelphia Police Department’s Chief of Civil Affairs. In response, he stated that the Department had established the location of this demonstration site at the Secret Service’s direction.
33. Notwithstanding his initial claim to be without authority, when he was reminded of this Court’s November 25, 1988, Order he permitted the protesters to leave the cornered-off area and proceed north along 12th street approximately two-thirds of the way to Filbert Street, before he once again set up a line of police officers blocking further passage north.
34. As the Marriot’s main entrance sits on a cul-de-sac, which is recessed even further than the last one-third of the space between Market and Filbert, the police line ensured that CCJ and its partners could not see or be seen by the Presidential motorcade.
35. Persons espousing clearly supportive views of the President were, however, allowed to remain on the final one-third of that block, an area not otherwise restricted by
8

security. Consequently, these supporters could be easily seen and/or heard by the President’s motorcade.
36. Indeed, one individual who had been permitted to remain on the northern third of that street approached the protesters and began haranguing them for their lack of patriotism. He delivered these taunts while standing directly behind several Philadelphia Police Department officers.
37. Captain Fisher and other Philadelphia police officers were fully aware that Bush administration supporters were occupying an area that CCJ was led to believe had been closed for demonstration purposes by order of the Secret Service.
Philadelphia July 24, 2003, Demonstration 38. At approximately 10:30 am, July 24, 2003, President Bush toured the Treasury Financial Facility at 13000 Townsend Road. The Facility was printing approximately 25.4 million checks reimbursing parents pursuant to the newly enacted Child Tax Credit. 39. In an effort to call attention to the failure of the President and the House Republican leadership to broaden that tax credit to benefit the working poor, plaintiff ACORN called upon its members to demonstrate outside the facility during the President’s visit. 40. In anticipation of that event, ACORN held a series of discussions with both the Secret Service and the Civil Affairs Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department requesting the right to demonstrate on the public sidewalk across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility. 41. On July 23, 2003, ACORN was informed by both officers of Philadelphia Police Department’s Civil Affairs Unit and agents of the Secret Service that neither ACORN nor any other group would be permitted access to the sidewalk across the street from the Treasury
9

Financial Facility during the President’s visit. The Secret Service and Police officials advised that the area would be part of a security buffer zone.
42. Based on the Secret Service’s assertion that no one except police personnel would be allowed directly in front of the building, ACORN agreed that it would hold its demonstration on the corner of the sidewalk diagonally across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility building. This area, however, would make it less likely that the President would observe ACORN when entering and leaving the Treasury Financial Facility.
43. On July 24, 2003, legal observers from the American Civil Liberties Union sent to ensure that neither the Secret Service nor the Philadelphia Police interfere with ACORN’s protest, observed that there were individuals on the sidewalk immediately in front of the Treasury Financial Facility building in support of President Bush.
44. Within minutes of the observers noticing the President’s supporters, ACORN’s counsel began complaining about this discrimination to police officials. At about the same time, the supporters were moved from their location.
45. Following that complaint, Secret Service officers directed the Philadelphia Police Department to move ACORN protesters from the originally-designated corner to a location even further from the Treasury Financial Facility.
46. As a result of the original discriminatory treatment afforded protesters based on their viewpoint, which permitted individuals sympathetic to the administration closer access to the Treasury Financial Facility, and the attempt to move ACORN to a location from which it would be much more difficult for them to be seen or heard by the President, an attorney for ACORN that morning applied to this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order.
10

47. In response to that application, on July 24th 2003, this Court ordered, “the defendants to permit plaintiffs to demonstrate peacefully at the corner diagonally across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility Building, which is located at 12000 Townsend, no farther away from the Treasury Financial Facility than other protesters.”
48. Even as the Court was holding that hearing defe ndants parked several large police vans directly in front of ACORN’s members making it less likely that either they or the President would see each other.
49. Additionally, when a number of individuals displaying the American flag, thereby demonstrating their support of the President, arrayed themselves on the other side of the street, defendants took no steps to impede their view of the President or his of them.
Restrictions on Protesters at Events Across the United States The Secret Service’s First Practice
50. In many cities across the country during recent Presidential and Vice Presidential appearances, the defendant Secret Service has required protesters to move further away from the location of the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that support the government to remain closer. The incidents include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. April 29, 2002, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Presidential fund-raiser at local hotel; b. August 23, 2002, Stockton, California, Presidential fund-raiser in a local park; c. September 2, 2002, Neville Island, Pennsylvania, Presidential appearance at labor
rally; d. September 22, 2002, Trenton, New Jersey, Presidential fund-raiser at local arena; e. September 27, 2002, Phoenix, Arizona, Presidential fund-raiser at downtown
Civic Arena;
11

f. October 24, 2002, Columbia, South Carolina, Presidential appearance at airport; g. November 4, 2002, St. Louis, Missouri, Presidential appearance at the St. Charles
Family Area; h. January 22, 2003, St. Louis, Missouri, Presidential appearance to announce an
economic plan; Restrictions on Protesters at Events Across the United States
The Secret Service’s Second Practice 51. In many cities across the country during recent Presidential and Vice Presidential appearances, the defe ndant Secret Service has required everyone expressing a view -- either critical or supportive of the government -- to move further away from the location of the official and/or the event leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express no view, to remain closer. The incidents include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. March 27, 2001, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Presidential appearance at Western Michigan University;
b. February 6, 2002, Evansville, Indiana, Vice Presidential appearance at the local civic center;
c. August 23, 2002, Stockton, California, Presidential fund-raiser in a local park; d. September, 26, 2002, Houston, Texas, Presidential fund-raiser at local hotel; e. September 27, 2002, Phoenix, Arizona, Presidential fund-raiser at downtown
Civic Arena; f. June 17, 2003, Washington, D.C., Presidential appearance at downtown hotel; and g. June 23, 2003, Richmond, Virginia, Vice Presidential fund-raiser at downtown
hotel.
12

52. Plaintiffs and their affiliated organizations and members have been directly involved in many of the incidents referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. Consequently, their First Amendment right to engage in peaceful political protest activities in traditional public forums has been violated.
53. Plaintiffs and their affiliated organizations and members intend to continue to organize and participate in peaceful political protest activities in traditional public forums when senior federal officials protected by the Secret Service come to their area.
54. Absent injunctive relief, plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm by having their First Amendment right to engage in peaceful political protest activities in traditional public forums violated. There is no adequate remedy at law for these First Amendment violations.
CAUSES OF ACTION
55. Defendants’ actions have violated, and continue to violate, plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, speak and petition for redress of grievances, which rights are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for which remedies are provided by 42 U.S.C. § l983.
56. In denying protesters in Philadelphia access to space open to the general public or to those wishing to convey a message of support for the current Presidential administration, defendants City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Police Department have violated this Court’s Order in Pledge of Resistance v. We the People 200, et al.
13

Relief Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: A. Declare that the Secret Service’s policy and/or practice of discriminating against peaceful political protesters in either of the two forms, i.e., by requiring, or directing and encouraging municipal police departments to require: (1) plaintiffs and other protesters to move further from the location of the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that support the government to remain closer; and (2) everyone expressing a view – either critical or supportive of the government -- to move further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express no view to remain closer, violates the First Amendment; and B. Grant plaintiffs’ preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, prohibiting defendant Secret Service its subordinate, agents and those acting in concert with it from requiring, or directing and encouraging municipal police departments to require (1) plaintiffs and other protesters to move further away from the location of the official and/or the event, allowing people who support the government to remain closer; and (2) everyone expressing a view – either critical or supportive of the government -- to move further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express no view to remain closer, and C. Grant plaintiffs preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring all of the defendants to comply with this Court’s Order of November 24th, 1988 in Pledge of Resistance v. We the People 200, et al. with regards to demonstrations in Philadelphia; and,
14

D. Grant plaintiffs such other relief as they may be entitled to; and, E. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

Witold J. Walczak Pa. I.D. No. 62976 ACLU of Pennsylvania Foundation 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681-7736
Arthur B. Spitzer ACLU of the National Capital Area 1400 20th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 475-0800
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Stefan Presser Pa. I.D. No. 43067 ACLU of Pennsylvania Foundation 125 South Ninth Street Philadelphia, PA 10107 (215) 592-1513 Ext. 116
Christopher A. Hansen American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street – 18th floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2606

15

 </s> Acorn v. City of Philadelphia, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

2004 WL 1012693 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
ACORN, Usaction, United for Peace and Justice, and the National Organization for Women v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, the Police
Department of the City of Philadelphia, and the United States Secret Service of the Department of
Homeland Security
No. Civ.A.03–4312. | May 6, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Arthur B. Spitzer, ACLU of the National Capital Area, Washington, DC, Christopher A. Hansen, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Stefan Presser, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Witold J. Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher I. McCabe, City Solicitor‘s Office, Joan K. Garner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Philadelphia, PA, Thomas W. Millet, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FULLAM, J.
*1 In 1988, organizations and persons who had been precluded from distributing leaflets at public gatherings on property of the Park Service, allegedly because of the views being expressed in the leaflets, obtained, by consent, a permanent injunction in this court (C.A. No. 87–3975), barring the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, the Regional Director of the United States Park Service, the Superintendent of Independence National Historical Park, and various other officials and persons acting in concert with them “from denying to plaintiffs or any other person permission to lawfully distribute leaflets and other printed matter, or to wear, display or carry signs, placards, or insignia, by reason of the message contained therein and sought to be conveyed” (Injunctive Order dated November 25, 1988).
On July 24, 2003, the plaintiff Acorn (“a nationwide organization The Association of Community

Organizations for Reform Now, ... the nation’s largest community organization of low and moderate income families” which seeks a wide variety of social improvements, and which conducts demonstrations in support of its objectives) filed a verified complaint in this action, asserting, among other things, that the defendant City of Philadelphia and its Police Department, in conjunction with the United States Secret Service, was violating the 1988 injunction by preventing plaintiff and its members from demonstrating near the scene of an appearance by the President of the United States, in opposition to the Administration’s tax policies, while permitting demonstrations supporting the current Administration. The complaint was filed at the very start of the public event at which the President was appearing, and plaintiff sought immediate judicial relief. The United States Attorney’s Office accepted service of the complaint on the day it was filed, and after a brief emergency conference, and without opposition from defense counsel, I entered an order requiring the defendants “to permit plaintiffs to demonstrate peacefully” at (a designated location), “no farther away from the Treasury Financial Facility Building than other demonstrators.”
On September 23, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding as plaintiffs three other organizations (USAction, United for Peace and Justice, and the National Organization for Women), seeking wide-ranging relief. In essence, plaintiffs seek (1) a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Secret Service and police departments working in conjunction with the Secret Service must provide equal treatment to would-be demonstrators at public functions, regardless of whether the protesters support or oppose government policies; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to the same effect; and (3) an order requiring all of the defendants to comply with the 1988 injunction (consent decree).
The amended complaint names as defendants the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police Department, and the United States Secret Service of the Department of Homeland Security. By stipulation, the Police Department (a non-suable entity) has been deleted as a defendant. The remaining defendants, the City of Philadelphia and the United States Secret Service, have filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the theory that plaintiffs are not facing an imminent injury in fact, hence have no standing. Since constitutional standing principles are involved, defendants’ motions are properly considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), rather than 12(b)(6). Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir.2000).
*2 Plaintiffs contend that the United States Secret Service, as a matter of standard practice, treats anti-government protesters less favorably than
1

Acorn v. City of Philadelphia, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

pro-government protesters, and treats protesters of any kind less favorably than non-protesting members of the public, in carrying out (in conjunction with local police) its important function of safeguarding public officials and preserving order. Plaintiffs have provided numerous examples (at least 15 instances, in various parts of the country), in which plaintiffs and other organizations of similar bent have allegedly been so discriminated against by the Secret Service. Plaintiffs contend that these facts support the inference that, absent judicial intervention, similar violations of First Amendment rights will be perpetrated against plaintiffs and their members in the near future, especially in view of the prospect of national political conventions and the political functions associated with the forthcoming presidential election.
Plaintiffs concede that they are unable to specify a date and time of official events where such violations are likely to occur, but note that they usually cannot learn of the scheduling of such events in sufficient time to enable them to obtain judicial relief.
It is undisputed that the Secret Service has the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding federal public officials, and preserving order at public events; the local police, in such situations, act under the direction and control of the Secret Service. It is also undisputed that the Secret Service has elaborate written regulations which specifically provide for non-discrimination on the basis of the views sought to be expressed by protesters. In short, everyone agrees that demonstrators opposed to the administration have the legal right to be treated no worse than pro-government demonstrators. It follows that no useful purpose would be served by entering a declaratory judgment to that effect. It also follows that all Secret Service agents are chargeable with knowledge of what the law provides in that regard. Agents who violate the policy cannot successfully assert a defense of qualified immunity.
The gist of plaintiffs’ amended complaint is that, in practice, the Secret Service regulations are often ignored by agents on the scene. In essence, plaintiffs seek an injunction directing the Secret Service to see to it that its own regulations are enforced.
Whether plaintiffs have standing, in the constitutional sense, to obtain injunctive relief depends upon whether they can show that they are threatened with real and imminent injury—i.e., that there is a concrete likelihood that their constitutional rights will be violated unless injunctive relief is granted. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
Plaintiff ACORN can be said to have established that, on July 24, 2003, in connection with an appearance by President Bush, the defendants may indeed have violated

plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and that this court’s temporary restraining order was warranted. (The record does not disclose whether that order had any practical impact, or whether the President’s visit had ended before the restraining order reached the agents in the field.) But the other plaintiffs were not involved in that incident, and ACORN’s complaints about the July 23rd incident are, obviously, now moot.
*3 Thus, the issue is whether the facts alleged by plaintiffs in their amended complaint suffice to permit this court to find that there is a clear likelihood that, at some identifiable future time and place, the defendants will violate plaintiffs constitutional rights if the requested injunction is denied. In my view, plaintiffs’ claims are too amorphous to be justiciable at this point in time.
I believe the most that can be said is that there is a likelihood that, at various public appearances by high government officials which are likely to occur at some place and time in the future, disputes will arise as to whether plaintiffs and the persons they represent are being improperly limited in their protest activities, and that, if such disputes cannot be resolved amicably, judicial intervention by some court may be appropriate. Stated otherwise, there may be future disputes as to whether, in a given situation, the Secret Service is abiding by its own regulations. But the proper resolution of any such disputes must take place in the jurisdiction where such disputes arise, and where the specific factual context can readily be developed. The potential violations alleged by plaintiffs are simply not yet ripe.
To summarize, I do not believe this court has subjectmatter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in this case. In any event, I conclude that any injunctive relief which might be granted at this point would serve no useful purpose. This action will therefore be dismissed.
An order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of May 2004, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery is DENIED as moot.
	
  

2

Acorn v. City of Philadelphia, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004) 3

 </s> United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...
CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-04312-JF

ACORN v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JOHN P. FULLAM Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 07/24/2003 Date Terminated: 05/05/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff ACORN

represented by ARTHUR B. SPITZER ACLU OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA 1400 20TH STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202-475-0800 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 BROAD STREET 18TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004 212-549-2606 Fax: 212-549-2651 Email: chansen@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WITOLD J. WALCZAK ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH CHAPTER 313 ATWOOD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15213 TEL 412-681-7864 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

Plaintiff THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN
Plaintiff UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
Plaintiff USACTION

represented by ARTHUR B. SPITZER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WITOLD J. WALCZAK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ARTHUR B. SPITZER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WITOLD J. WALCZAK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ARTHUR B. SPITZER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTOPHER A. HANSEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

2 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

V. Defendant THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Defendant THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TERMINATED: 10/08/2003 Defendant THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WITOLD J. WALCZAK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTOPHER I. MCCABE JACOBY DONNER PC 1700 MARKET ST. SUITE 3100 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-563-2400 Email: cmccabe@jacobydonner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTOPHER I. MCCABE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2004
represented by JOAN K. GARNER U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 615 CHESTNUT ST. SUITE 1250 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-861-8306 Fax: 215-861-8349 Email: joan.garner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THOMAS W. MILLET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 MASSACHUESETTS AVE. NW PO BOX 883 WASHINGTOWN, DC 20044 202-514-3313 Email: THOMAS.MILLET@USDOJ.GOV ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

Date Filed 07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003 07/24/2003
07/25/2003 09/05/2003 09/05/2003 09/05/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number 895621.), filed by ACORN.(ti, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/25/2003 (cdd, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
Two Original Summons Issued as to THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. Forwarded To: Counsel on 7/24/03 (ti, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
Summons Issued as to THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, One Given to the U.S. Attorney and Two Forwarded To: Counsel on 7/24/03 (ti, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
2 Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint for THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY on 7/24/2003, answer due 9/22/2003. (ar, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
3 ORDER THAT THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT PLAINTIFFS TO DEMONSTRATE PEACEFULLY AT THE CORNER DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TREASURY FINANCIAL FACILITY BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 13000 TOWNSEND, NO FARTHER AWAY FROM THE TREASURY FINANCIAL FACILITY BUILDING THAN OTHER DEMONSTRATORS.SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 7/24/03. 7/25/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(cdd, ) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by CHRISTOPHER I. MCCABE on behalf of THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA with Certificate of Service (MCCABE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to USA. Julia Richardson, Legal Program Assistant on behalf of ACORN served the UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY by certified mail, return receipt requested on 8/12/03; return receipt card attached.(cdd, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to USA. Julia Richardson, Legal Program Assistant on behalf of ACORN served John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States on behalf of THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY by certified mail, return receipt requested on 8/11/03; return receipt card attached. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to USA. Julia Richardson, Legal Program Assistant on behalf of ACORN served United States Attorney's Office on behalf of THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY by certified mail on 8/6/03, return receipt card attached. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

4 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

09/22/2003 09/22/2003 09/22/2003 09/23/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003 10/02/2003
10/08/2003

8 DEFENDANT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S Answer to PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service. (MCCABE, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 9/23/2003 (fh) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
9 FEDERAL DEFENDANT THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1)(GARNER, JOAN) Modified on 9/23/2003 (fh) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/23/2003 (fh, ). (Entered: 09/22/2003)
Issue Joined. (fh) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION, ACORN against THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Certificate of Service. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
2 Summons Issued as to THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. Forwarded To: Plaintiff's Counsel on 9/26/03. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
3 Summons Issued as to THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General Forwarded To: Plaintiff's Counsel on 9/26/03. (cdd, ) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
11 MOTION FILED BY ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF CHRIS HANSEN, ART SPITZER, AND WITOLD WALCZAK, VERIFICATION IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 VERIFICATION IN SUPPORT # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(cdd, ) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
12 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS DO NOT OBJECT TO THE FILING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; DEFENDANTS WAIVE SERVICE BY SUMMONS; DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL BE DUE ON OR BEFORE 11/24/03; AND THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS HEREBY WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH ADDRESSED ONLY THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 10/2/03. 10/3/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND COPY FAXED BY CHAMBERS ON 10/2/03.(cdd, ) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
13 STIPULATION of Dismissal of the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia by ACORN, THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF

5 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

10/09/2003 10/20/2003 10/27/2003 10/30/2003 11/07/2003
11/20/2003 11/24/2003
12/08/2003

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION. (MCCABE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
14 Stipulation of Dismissal by ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION against THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. (ar, ) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
15 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, SHALL BE DROPPED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT.SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 10/20/03. 10/20/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND COPY FAXED BY CAHMBERS.(cdd, ) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
16 DEFENDANT THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, Memorandum In support, and Exhibits, Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum # 2 Exhibits)(MILLET, THOMAS) Modified on 10/28/2003 (fh) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
17 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LIMITED ADMISSION OF CHRIS HANSEN, ART SPITZER AND WITOLD WALCZAK ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF. SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 10/30/03.10/31/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (ph, ) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE THEIR REPLY BRIEF ON OR BEFORE 11/24/03, AND DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE SHALL FILE ITS REPLY ON OR BEFORE 12/8/03, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 11/6/03. 11/7/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS ON 11/6/03.(cdd, ) Modified on 11/7/2003 (cdd, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 11/20/2003 (cdd, ). (Entered: 11/07/2003)
19 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.Certificate of Service.(MCCABE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
20 Memorandum of Law filed by ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Leslie Cagan# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Jeffrey D. Blum# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Olga Vives# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Verification of Steve Bachmann# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 - Declaration of Lisa Burks# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6 - Declaration of Terry Treadway)(cdd, ) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
21 DEFENDANT THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S Memorandum in Reply to PLAINTIFFS' Opposition to 9, 16 MOTION TO DISMISS, Memorandum In support, and Exhibits, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (MILLET, THOMAS)

6 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

01/07/2004 03/17/2004 03/19/2004 03/23/2004 03/23/2004 03/24/2004 05/05/2004

Modified on 12/9/2003 (fh) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
22 NOTICE by THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Memorandum In support, and Exhibits Notice of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order and verdict in USA v. Bursey)(MILLET, THOMAS) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
23 MOTION FILED BY ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DISCOVERY ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(cdd, ) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
24 Praecipe to Substitute Signature Pages from Plaintiffs' MOTION for Leave to File Discovery on an Expedited Basis by ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION, Certificate of Service. (Signature pages attached). (mar, ) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
25 Memorandum re 23 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to motion for Expedited Discovery filed by THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(MILLET, THOMAS) Modified on 3/24/2004 (fh) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
26 Memorandum of DEFENDANT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA in Opposition to PLAINTIFF'S 23 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DISCOVERY ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS, Certificate of Service. (MCCABE, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/24/2004 (fh) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
27 Praecipe by ACORN, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, USACTION to File Attachment to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Discovery on an Expedited Basis, Certificate of Service. (cdd, ) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION ARE GRANTED. THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IS DENIED AS MOOT.SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN P. FULLAM ON 5/5/04. 5/6/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED; COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS ON 5/5/04.(cdd, ) (Entered: 05/06/2004)

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/18/2007 11:23:18

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

7 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?829373797123626-L_3...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 4

Search Criteria:
Cost:

2:03-cv-04312-JF 0.32

8 of 8

6/18/2007 10:23 AM

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ACORN,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-4312

:

v.

:

:

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF

:

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

and THE UNITED STATES

:

SECRET SERVICE OF THE

:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

:

SECURITY

:

:

Defendants.

:

VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a nationally recognized organization dedicated to dedicated to empowering poor people and bring to the Nations attention, the plight of those who are powerless, have been prevented by the City of Philadelphia and the United States Secret Service from entering a sidewalk, which is immediately opposite the building which President Bush is touring this morning, even though that same sidewalk was open to individual wishing to support the President. This law enforcement action not only violates the United States’ Constitution prohibition against viewpoint discrimination as well as this Court’s Order permitting them to demonstrate on the sidewalk opposite the Treasury Financial Management Facility at 13000 Townsend Road.
Jurisdiction 1. As Plaintiff seek to vindicate rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section l983, the Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections l33l and l343(a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Sections 220l and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 2. Plaintiff, ACORN, is a nationwide organization the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation’s largest community organization of low and moderateincome families, with over 150,000 member families organized into 700 neighborhood chapters in 51 cities across the country. Since 1970 ACORN has taken action and won victories on issues of concern to our members. Our priorities include: better housing for the first time homebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more investment in our communities from banks and governments, and better public schools. We achieve these goals by building community organizations that have the power to win changes—through direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation. 3. Defendant, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, is an incorporated municipality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which may be served by delivering process to the Honorable Nelson Diaz, City Solicitor, whose office is located at City Law Department, One Parkway, 1515 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102-1595. 4. Defendant, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, is responsible for all law enforcement activities within the City of Philadelphia. 5. Defendant, THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE OF THE DEPARMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, is the federal agency charged with, among other assignments, protecting the President of the United States.
FACTS 6. At approximately 10:30 am today, July 24, 2003, President Bush will be touring the Treasury Financial Facility at 13000 Townsend Road, where some of the 25.4 million checks
2

reimbursing parents pursuant to the newly enacted Child Tax Credit, will be printed. 7. In an effort to call attention to the failure of the President and the House Republican
leadership to broaden that tax credit to the working poor, ACORN called upon its members to demonstrate outside the facility during the President’s visit.
8. In anticipation of that event, ACORN held a series of discussions with both the Secret Service and the Civil Affairs Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department requesting the right to demonstrate on the public sidewalk across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility.
9. On July 23, 2003, both ACORN and the Undersigned attorney were informed by both officers of Civil Affairs and agents of the Secret Service that neither ACORN nor any other groups or individuals would be permitted access to the sidewalk across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility during the President’s visit.
10. It was on this basis that ACORN was willing to hold its demonstration on the corner of the sidewalk diagonally across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility building. This area, however, would make it less likely that the President would observe ACORN when entering and leaving the Treasury Financial Facility.
11. This morning, July 24, 2003, only moments ago, when setting up for their demonstration, ACORN and its members observed individuals campaigning their support for President Bush, entering the sidewalk immediately in front of the Treasury Financial Facility building.
12. Defendants took no steps to remove the President’s supporters. 13. ACORN and its members are being subjected to viewpoint discrimination by Defendants 14. Absent this Court’s immediate Order permitting ACORN access to the street in front of the Treasury Financial Facility building, ACORN will suffer an immediate and irreparable injury.
3

15. Additionally, within the last few minutes, ACORN has now been pushed by Philadelphia Police, from the corner diagonally across the street from the Treasury Financial Facility building to an area away from the intersection at Townsend and McMulty (see attached diagram.)
Causes of Action 16. In denying or refusing got permit Plaintiff access to the sidewalk immediately across from the Treasury Financial Facility because of the viewpoint of their political message, Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and speak, which rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and for which remedies are provided by 42 U.S.C. § l983.
17. In denying or refusing to permit a permission to be on the corner of Townsend and McMulty, the Defendants have violated this Court’s Order in Pledge of Resistance v. We the People 200, et al.
Relief Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court will: A. Grant Plaintiffs preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant, their subordinates, employees, agents and those acting in concert with to immediately give aces to the corner diagonally across from the Treasury Financial Facility building on July 24, 2003. B. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as they may be entitled to, including damages; and C. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
4

Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Stefan Presser, Esq. PA Attorney No. 43067 Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of
Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth St., Suite 70l Philadelphia, PA l9l07 (2l5) 592-1513 x 116 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
5


[CONTENT] July 24, 2003 | ACLU | The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now | the U.S. District Court | the Eastern District | Pennsylvania | Philadelphia | the United States Secret Service | 1988 | the United States ||| Nearly fifteen years before | November 25, 1988 | the National Park Service | the City of Philadelphia | Philadelphia ||| ACORN | the July 2003 ||| United States | the day ||| John P. Fullam | the Treasury Financial Facility Building ||| September 23, 2003 | ACLU | three | USAction | United for Peace | Justice | the National Organization for Women ||| 1 | the Secret Service | the Secret Service | 2 | 3 | 1988 ||| the City of Philadelphia | the Philadelphia Police Department | the United States Secret Service ||| October 2003 |||  ||| May 6, 2004 | Fullam |||  |||  ||| the Secret Service |||  [SUMMARY] On July 24, 2003, represented by ACLU attorneys, the plaintiff ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, an organization which seeks social improvements and conducts demonstrations) filed a verified complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting, among other things, that the that the defendant City of Philadelphia and its police, in conjunction with the United States Secret Service, were violating a 1988 injunction by preventing plaintiff and its members from demonstrating near the scene of an appearance by the President of the United States, in opposition to the administration's tax policies, while permitting demonstrations supporting the then-current administration.  Nearly fifteen years before, on November 25, 1988, in the same federal district court, organizations and persons earlier precluded from distributing leaflets at public gatherings on property of the National Park Service, allegedly because of the views being expressed in the leaflets, had obtained by consent a permanent injunction barring the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia police, and various local and federal officials, and persons acting in concert with them, "from denying to plaintiffs or any other person permission to lawfully distribute leaflets and other printed matter, or to wear, display or carry signs, placards, or insignia, by reason of the message contained therein and sought to be conveyed."

ACORN's initial complaint was filed at the very start of the July 2003, public event at which the President was appearing, and the plaintiff sought immediate judicial relief.   The United States Attorney's Office accepted service of the complaint on the day it was filed. After a brief emergency conference and without opposition from defense counsel, District Judge John P. Fullam entered an unpublished order requiring the defendants "to permit plaintiffs to demonstrate peacefully" at (a designated location), "no farther away from the Treasury Financial Facility Building than other demonstrators."

On September 23, 2003, still represented by ACLU attorneys, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding as plaintiffs three other organizations (USAction, United for Peace and Justice, and the National Organization for Women), seeking wide-ranging relief.  In essence, plaintiffs sought (1) a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Secret Service and police departments working in conjunction with the Secret Service must provide equal treatment to would-be demonstrators at public functions, regardless of whether the protesters support or oppose government policies; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to the same effect; and (3) an order requiring all of the defendants to comply with the 1988 injunction (consent decree).  The amended complaint named as defendants the City of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police Department, and the United States Secret Service.  As the police were a non-suable entity, they were deleted as a defendant in October 2003.  The remaining defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, saying that the plaintiffs lacked standing since they presently faced no imminent injury in fact.

On May 6, 2004, Judge Fullam's unpublished opinion granted the motions to dismiss. In his view, the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in their amended complaint did not suffice to permit a finding that there was a clear likelihood that, at some identifiable future time and place, the defendants would violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights if the requested injunction was denied.  In the judge's view, the plaintiffs' claims were too amorphous to be justiciable.  Because allegations of mere potential violations by the Secret Service of its own regulations were unripe and lacked a specific factual context, the court felt it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.

We have no information indicating any post-dismissal activity in this case.