Porter v. Martinez

This opinion amended Porter v. Martinez, No. 21-55249, __F4th__ (9th Cir April, 2023) by altering Footnote 6 to include that, in asking for an injunction, plaintiff wanted an injunction against enforcing all bans on expressive honking, but the district court would have discretion in applying an injunction more narrowly. The opinion was otherwise unchanged.

This is an amended opinion of Porter v. Martinez, No. 21-55249, __F4th__ (9th Cir April, 2023). In Porter v. Martinez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated by Section 27001’s ban on “expressive” honks because the statute was content-neutral and passed intermediate scrutiny. This opinion amended Footnote 6, to better encapsulate plaintiff’s argument. Footnote 6 originally noted plaintiff rejected limiting her argument to enjoining the statute as applied only to political honking, replying instead that she “wanted to enjoin enforcement against ‘all expressive conduct through use of a vehicle horn.’” As amended, the footnote included a quote from plaintiff’s counsel, which expanded on plaintiff’s aforementioned rejection to limit her argument, and noted that plaintiff would ask for an injunction against enforcing all bans on expressive honking, but that the district court would have discretion in applying an injunction more narrowly for purposes of workability. After amendment, plaintiff’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied. Judge Berzon dissented in the original Porter v. Martinez opinion, and maintained the same dissent here. Rehearing en banc DENIED, opinion AFFIRMED with amendment.