Sindicato Puertorriqueno v. Fortuno-Burset ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-2171
    SINDICATO PUERTORRIQUEÑO DE TRABAJADORES, SEIU LOCAL 1996, UNIÓN
    GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE PUERTO RICO, SEIU LOCAL 1199; SERVICE
    EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; ALIANZA SEIU PUERTO RICO, INC.,
    Plaintiffs, Appellants,
    v.
    LUIS FORTUÑO, in his official capacity as Governor of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF PUERTO
    RICO; LAUDELINO F. MULERO CLAS, in his official capacity as
    President of the Public Service Commission; OFFICE OF THE
    ELECTORAL COMPTROLLER; MANUEL A. TORRES NIEVES, in his official
    capacity as Electoral Comptroller,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Lipez, and Howard,
    Circuit Judges.
    Jeremiah A. Collins, with whom Mark Schneider, Alvin
    Velazquez, John M. West, Kimberly M. Sánchez Ocasio, Nora Vargas
    Acosta and Manuel A. Rodríguez Banchs were on brief, for
    appellants.
    Claudio Aliff-Ortiz, with whom Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz,
    Michael C. McCall, and Eliezer A. Aldarondo-López were on brief,
    for appellees Public Service Commission of Puerto Rico, Luis G.
    Fortuño-Burset and Laudelino F. Mulero-Clas, and with whom Carlos
    Enrique Cardona-Fernández was on brief, for appellees Office of the
    Electoral Comptroller and Manuel Torres-Nieves.
    October 19, 2012
    Per   Curiam.    In   this   appeal   from   the   denial    of   a
    preliminary injunction, plaintiff labor unions claim that Sections
    6.007-.010 of Law 222, Puerto Rico's campaign finance law, place an
    unconstitutional burden on the unions' First Amendment right to
    engage in political speech.       Despite the gravity of plaintiffs'
    claims and months of procedural wrangling, including two writs of
    mandamus from this court to the district court directing it to rule
    on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief and the
    merits of their constitutional claims, both the district court and
    the government declined to address the merits of their claims.
    Indeed, we asked the Puerto Rico government three times at oral
    argument to defend the merits of the campaign finance provisions at
    issue, and each time the government declined to do so.                In the
    absence of any such defense, and in light of the other factors
    relevant to the preliminary injunction analysis, we issued an
    appellate injunction on October 11, 2012, enjoining enforcement of
    the challenged provisions of Law 222 pending the final disposition
    of this appeal.    We now resolve that appeal.          In so doing, we
    explain more fully the reasons why we ordered the entry of the
    appellate injunction.     We also set forth at the end of the opinion
    the preliminary injunction that we now direct the district court to
    enter.
    -3-
    I. Background
    Prior to 2011, the rights of labor unions in Puerto Rico
    to make political expenditures or engage in electioneering were
    strictly limited by Section 4.7(c)(4) of the Puerto Rico Public
    Service Labor Relations Act, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, § 1451i(c)(4),
    also known as Law 45.     Seeking to bring Puerto Rico's campaign
    finance law into compliance with the Supreme Court's landmark
    opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 
    130 S. Ct. 876
     (2010), Puerto Rico enacted the "Puerto Rico Political Campaign
    Financing Oversight Act," P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 16, also known as Law
    222, on November 18, 2011.
    Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Sections
    6.007-.010 of Law 222.   These sections outline the procedures that
    juridical persons such as corporations and unions must follow if
    they wish to make either campaign contributions or independent
    expenditures.1   Failure to comply with these procedures can result
    in significant financial penalties, including criminal penalties,
    1
    Under Law 222, juridical persons can make financial
    contributions in support of a candidate for political office either
    through direct contributions or independent expenditures. Direct
    contributions are those made directly to a political candidate or
    to a party or committee that coordinates with that candidate's
    campaign. Independent expenditures are financial investments in
    electioneering activity outside of a candidate's official campaign.
    Puerto Rico's campaign finance regulations define "independent
    expenditure or uncoordinated expenditure" as "an expenditure that
    is not or was not made in concert with or at the request or
    suggestion of a political party, aspirant, candidate, or campaign
    committee, authorized agent, representative, or committee of any of
    the above." Regulation No. 16, § 3.1.
    -4-
    for the juridical person and its officers.          Because we deem this to
    be a facial challenge to an intricate statutory framework, we have
    included the full text of each of the challenged sections in an
    Appendix attached to this opinion.2
    The plaintiffs in this case are three labor unions and
    one non-profit organization associated with the unions.              Plaintiff
    unions Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores ("SPT") and Unión
    General de Trabajadores ("UGT") together have more than 26,000
    members in Puerto Rico.        Both SPT and UGT are affiliates of the
    Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), an international
    labor organization with over 2.1 million members. Allianza SEIU is
    a non-profit organization that provides educational and political
    support to organizations in Puerto Rico affiliated with SEIU.
    Officers    from    both    UGT   and   SPT   testified    at   the
    preliminary injunction hearing that immediately after Law 222 was
    passed   the   two   unions   swiftly   initiated    plans   to   engage   in
    political speech.     On November 19, 2011 –- the day after Law 222
    was signed into law -- the unions jointly adopted a platform
    2
    We note that the text of Law 222 has been amended in part by
    Law 135, which came into effect on July 3, 2012, two days after the
    plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case. An official
    translation of Law 135 is not yet available. Though an unofficial
    translation is necessarily somewhat imprecise, we have reviewed
    plaintiffs' certified translation of Law 135, and conclude that Law
    135 makes no substantive changes to the provisions of Law 222 at
    issue here. Thus, while we rely on the official translation of Law
    222 in our opinion, our holding should be construed to apply with
    equal force to Law 222 as amended by Law 135.
    -5-
    titled "Proposals for a Better Country" ("the Proposals"), which
    the unions' membership determined "should be implemented as a
    solution to the crisis that Puerto Rico is experiencing."                                The
    district court described the Proposals as "proposals to improve
    the lives of their members and their families as well as the
    welfare of Puerto Rico through the topics of education, health and
    welfare, labor rights, sustainable development, democracy and
    citizen participation, and human rights."3
    After adopting the Proposals, the unions submitted them
    to    different    members        of   the    legislature         and   candidates       for
    political office to see if they would be willing to support the
    Proposals.        On    March     30,   2012,       UGT's       Council   of    Delegates
    determined that if permitted by law, UGT would make expenditures
    on behalf of candidates in the November 6, 2012 general election
    who    supported       the   Proposals.            On    June    15,    2012,    the     SPT
    Consultative Board adopted a similar resolution stating that if
    permitted    by    law,      it   would      make       expenditures      on    behalf    of
    supportive candidates in the general election.
    Officers from both unions testified that they had been
    cautioned by their attorneys that they would face serious risks of
    liability under Law 222 if they made any political expenditures
    related to the upcoming general election.                        Consequently, at the
    3
    We have not been provided with an English translation of the
    Proposals.
    -6-
    time the complaint in this case was filed, the unions had not yet
    engaged in any activities covered by Law 222, such as making
    political     contributions    or   establishing       a    political   action
    committee ("PAC").       However, according to testimony of SPT's
    president Roberto Pagán Rodríguez, SPT had already spent between
    $15,000 and $20,000 by late September 2012 promoting the Proposals
    themselves.     Most of this money was spent holding meetings across
    Puerto   Rico   for   union   members   to   discuss       the   Proposals   and
    printing information about the Proposals for the unions to use
    internally and at these meetings.
    On July 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
    federal district court in Puerto Rico alleging that Sections
    6.007, 6.009 and 6.010 of Law 222 restricted core political speech
    in violation of the First Amendment.          On July 17, the plaintiffs
    moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin enforcement
    of Section 4(c)(7) of Law 45 and of Sections 6.007 through 6.010
    of Law 222 "insofar as those provisions violate the constitutional
    rights of the Unions to make contributions and expenditures in
    connection with elections to public office and referenda."4
    4
    The plaintiffs have not always been precise in identifying
    the scope of the relief they seek. As discussed in more detail
    infra, the substance of the plaintiffs' argument on the merits
    concerns primarily Section 6.010 of Law 222, and its relationship
    to other provisions of Law 222 challenged here. Indeed, plaintiffs
    did not raise any challenges to the prior campaign finance law, Law
    45, before us.
    -7-
    Even though the November 6, 2012 general election was
    rapidly   approaching,    the      district    court      moved   slowly   on
    plaintiffs' motion, and plaintiffs consequently petitioned this
    court twice for extraordinary relief.              In the first instance,
    without conducting a hearing, the district court issued a sua
    sponte order on September 7, 2012 certifying the question of Law
    222's   constitutionality    to    the    Puerto   Rico    Supreme   Court.
    Plaintiffs petitioned this court for relief.           On September 17, we
    concluded that because the district court had certified only
    questions of federal constitutional law, certification to the
    Puerto Rico Supreme Court was inappropriate.                 Exercising our
    supervisory mandamus authority, we vacated the district court's
    certification order, directed the district court to rescind the
    certified questions, and ordered the district court to "promptly
    rule on [plaintiffs'] motion for preliminary injunctive relief."
    One week later, plaintiffs again petitioned this court
    for a writ of mandamus.     This time, plaintiffs sought to vacate an
    order of the district court that, in effect, required plaintiffs
    to produce voluminous documents with only eighteen hours' notice.
    The district court had granted the defendants' discovery motion
    and stated that if plaintiffs failed to comply their claim would
    be dismissed with prejudice.        On September 24, 2012, we granted
    plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief, concluding that "our
    prior order   leaves no     room    for   avoidance through       procedural
    -8-
    maneuvering designed to defeat a decision on the merits."                                 We
    vacated the district court's discovery order in part, and again
    ordered the district court to rule on the merits of plaintiffs'
    motion.
    The day after our order issued, the district court
    conducted an evidentiary hearing.                      On September 27, 2012, the
    court     issued        an    order   denying         plaintiffs'        request    for     a
    preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs quickly appealed and filed a
    motion for an appellate injunction pending appeal.                               We set an
    expedited briefing schedule and heard oral arguments during a
    special session of this court on October 11, 2012.                            Within hours
    of   hearing   oral          argument,    we   issued       a    brief   order     granting
    plaintiffs'        motion       for      an    appellate         injunction      enjoining
    enforcement        of    Sections        6.007-10      of       Law   222     pending     the
    disposition of this appeal.
    II. The District Court's Opinion
    In its Opinion & Order denying the plaintiffs' motion
    for a     preliminary         injunction,       the    district       court    framed     its
    analysis using the familiar four-part test for evaluating the
    propriety of issuing a preliminary injunction. Relying heavily on
    our opinion in Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 
    622 F.3d 13
     (1st Cir.
    2010), the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had not
    made a showing of irreparable harm, that the balance of equities
    favored the government, and that the public interest weighed in
    -9-
    favor   of    denying     the    motion    for   a    preliminary    injunction.
    However, the court declined to determine whether plaintiffs had
    shown a likelihood of success on the merits, despite the fact that
    we have repeatedly held that this factor is "the most important
    part of the preliminary injunction assessment."                      Jean v. Mass.
    State Police, 
    492 F.3d 24
    , 27 (1st Cir. 2008).
    Though it concluded that the balance of the equities
    favored      the    government,     the     district     court   offered    little
    explanation of what harm the public would suffer if plaintiffs'
    motion were granted.        Without pointing to any specific provisions
    of Law 222, the district court concluded that "[g]ranting the
    plaintiffs the emergency relief they now seek in effect leaves the
    government     without     the    tools    to    implement     its   informational
    interest and thereby maintain an informed electorate."                   The court
    then referred to unspecified "disruptions" that would result if it
    were to grant plaintiffs' motion.
    The district court also concluded that plaintiffs had
    not demonstrated irreparable harm because they "waited until the
    eleventh     hour    to   seek    injunctive         relief"   and   because   "the
    Plaintiffs have not presented this Court with evidence of specific
    plans to make expenditures to support candidates or political
    parties or ideologies in furtherance of [the Proposals]."                       For
    reasons described in greater detail below, we conclude that the
    plaintiffs have not engaged in undue delay and have made a
    -10-
    sufficient showing that they will suffer an irreparable injury to
    their First Amendment rights if the enforcement of the relevant
    sections of Law 222 is not enjoined.
    III. Threshold Issues
    Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed
    because of lack of standing, justiciability, and ripeness.                At
    times these threshold arguments merge into a challenge to the
    irreparable    injury   component     of    the   preliminary    injunction
    analysis.     Generally, defendants maintain that plaintiffs "have
    not taken critical steps needed for them to be able to exercise
    the First Amendment rights that they claim."               Defendants claim
    that   plaintiffs   have   "fail[ed]       to   create    political   action
    committees, identify and agree on candidates for political parties
    who would support their [Proposals], make political contributions
    or expenditures in support thereof, or even make a work plan for
    such contributions or expenditures."
    These arguments reduce to the proposition that there is
    not a live controversy before the court sufficient to create
    jurisdiction under Article III.        Even though the district court
    did not address this threshold issue, "we bear an independent
    obligation to assure ourselves that jurisdiction is proper before
    proceeding to the merits."     Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family
    Land & Cattle Co., 
    554 U.S. 316
    , 324 (2008).             Although defendants
    attach a number of labels to their challenge, we believe that
    -11-
    their argument is properly construed as an attack on the ripeness
    of plaintiffs' claims, and therefore analyze it as such.
    "The doctrine of ripeness has roots in both the Article
    III   case     or    controversy      requirement      and     in    prudential
    considerations."       Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 
    317 F.3d 45
    , 59 (1st
    Cir. 2003).    The determination of ripeness depends on two factors:
    "the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship
    to the parties of withholding court consideration."                 Abbott Labs.
    v. Gardner, 
    387 U.S. 136
    , 149 (1967), abrogated on other grounds
    by Califano v. Sanders, 
    430 U.S. 99
     (1977); see also D.H.L.
    Assocs., Inc. v. O'Gorman, 
    199 F.3d 50
    , 53-54 (1st Cir. 1999).
    The inquiry as to the fitness of the issues for judicial
    resolution itself involves both constitutional and prudential
    components.         "The   constitutional     inquiry,       grounded   in    the
    prohibition    against     advisory    opinions,    is   one    of    timing."
    Mangual, 317 F.3d at 59.       "[I]ts basic rationale is to prevent the
    courts,   through      avoidance      of   premature     adjudication,       from
    entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . ."                 Abbott
    Labs., 387 U.S. at 148.            The prudential inquiry is "whether
    resolution of the dispute should be postponed in the name of
    'judicial restraint from unnecessary decision of constitutional
    issues'; if elements of the case are uncertain, delay may see the
    dissipation of the legal dispute without need for decision."
    -12-
    Mangual, 317 F.3d at 59 (quoting Reg'l Rail Reorganization Act
    Cases, 
    419 U.S. 102
    , 138 (1974)).
    The   inquiry    into    the     hardship    to   the   parties     of
    withholding court consideration is "wholly prudential."                  Mangual,
    317 F.3d at 59.    The hardship element requires a court to consider
    "whether the challenged action 'creates a direct and immediate
    dilemma for the parties.'"          Verizon New Eng., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd.
    of Elec. Workers, Local No. 2322, 
    651 F.3d 176
    , 188 (1st Cir.
    2011) (quoting Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 
    45 F.3d 530
    , 535 (1st Cir. 1995)).        Generally, a "mere possibility of
    future injury, unless it is the cause of some present detriment,
    does not constitute hardship."         Simmonds v. INS, 
    326 F.3d 351
    , 360
    (2d Cir. 2003).     However, the Supreme Court has made clear that
    when a plaintiff alleges "an intention to engage in a course of
    conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but
    proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of
    prosecution thereunder, he 'should not be required to await and
    undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking
    relief.'"    Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 
    442 U.S. 289
    , 298 (1979) (quoting Doe v. Bolton, 
    410 U.S. 179
    , 188 (1973)).
    As a supplement to these universally applicable aspects
    of ripeness jurisprudence, we have previously said that "when free
    speech is at issue, concerns over chilling effect call for a
    relaxation   of   ripeness    requirements."            Sullivan    v.   City   of
    -13-
    Augusta, 
    511 F.3d 16
    , 31 (1st Cir. 2007); see also El Día, Inc. v.
    Hernández Colón, 
    963 F.2d 488
    , 495-96 (1st Cir. 1992) ("A facial
    challenge    of    this     sort,   implicating      First      Amendment     values,
    customarily works a relaxation of the ripeness criteria.").                     Such
    a    relaxation      has     been     justified      by    the     potential     for
    "irretrievable loss" often involved in cases where First Amendment
    rights are at stake.          Sullivan, 511 F.3d at 31 (quoting El Día,
    963 F.3d at 496); see also Peachlum v. City of York, 
    333 F.3d 429
    ,
    434-35    (3d     Cir.    2003)     ("The   courts     have      repeatedly    shown
    solicitude for First Amendment claims because of concern that,
    even in the absence of a fully concrete dispute, unconstitutional
    statutes . . . tend to chill protected expression among those who
    forbear speaking because of the law's very existence.").                      "Thus,
    when     First    Amendment       claims    are   presented,         '[r]easonable
    predictability of enforcement or threats of enforcement, without
    more, have sometimes been enough to ripen a claim.'"                       Sullivan,
    511 F.3d at 31 (quoting New Mexicans for Bill Richardson v.
    Gonzales, 
    64 F.3d 1495
    , 1499 (10th Cir. 1995)).
    Despite        defendants'      attempts      to    graft   additional
    requirements that we have never imposed onto the established
    standards for determining ripeness in First Amendment cases,
    plaintiffs have done enough to show a "reasonable predictability
    of   enforcement"        sufficient    to    satisfy      the    relaxed    ripeness
    -14-
    standard applicable to the present case.5                   A party need not
    marshal all its resources and march to the line of illegality to
    challenge a statute on First Amendment grounds.               Plaintiffs have
    averred that they intend to act in a way that would violate Law
    222, and they have taken steps in preparation to carry out those
    acts.      Furthermore,    they      have    produced   evidence     that    they
    submitted the Proposals to members of the legislature, and SPT's
    president testified that UGT has already spent significant funds
    promoting the Proposals to its members.           In the present case, that
    is   all   that   is   needed   to    make    plaintiffs'    claim    ripe   for
    resolution.6
    5
    We note that this result would be the same if we were to
    consider defendants' jurisdictional arguments under the standing
    doctrine. See Warth v. Seldin, 
    422 U.S. 490
    , 499 n.10 (1975) ("The
    standing question thus bears close affinity to questions of
    ripeness - whether the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to
    warrant judicial intervention . . . ."); McInnis-Misenor v. Me.
    Med. Ctr., 
    319 F.3d 63
    , 69 (1st Cir. 2003) ("In general, standing
    and ripeness inquiries overlap. . . . The overlap is most apparent
    in cases that deny standing because an anticipated injury is too
    remote . . . ."); Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics and
    Election Practices, 
    205 F.3d 445
    , 463 (1st Cir. 2000).
    6
    Defendants also maintain that plaintiffs have not taken
    advantage of the procedure set out in Section 3.003(e) of Law 222,
    which provides that a party may request an opinion from the
    Election Comptroller as to the scope and application of the
    statute.   However, nowhere in Section 3.003 is the Election
    Comptroller given the authority to nullify unconstitutional
    provisions of Law 222. Because it is clear that Law 222 applies to
    the labor unions (a point that defendants conceded at oral
    argument), and because the provisions of Law 222 plaintiffs
    challenge are so constitutionally suspect, see infra, any
    administrative relief that the Election Comptroller could have
    provided would have been inadequate.    Plaintiffs were therefore
    under no obligation to exhaust such remedies.            See Coit
    -15-
    IV. The Preliminary Injunction Analysis
    "On    appeal,     we   review    the   grant   or   denial    of   a
    preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion." United States v.
    Weikert, 
    504 F.3d 1
    , 6 (1st Cir. 2007).               "Under that rubric,
    findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and issues of law
    are reviewed de novo."       Wine & Spirits Retailers, Inc. v. Rhode
    Island, 
    418 F.3d 36
    , 46 (1st Cir. 2005).
    In considering a plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
    injunction, the district court weighs four factors: "(1) the
    plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential
    for irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether
    issuing the     injunction    will   burden    the   defendants   less   than
    denying an injunction would burden the plaintiffs and (4) the
    effect, if any, on the public interest." Jean, 492 F.3d at 26-27.
    Though each factor is important, we keep in mind that "[t]he sine
    qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the
    merits: if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely
    to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of
    idle curiosity."     New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom,
    Inc., 
    287 F.3d 1
    , 9 (1st Cir. 2002).          To demonstrate likelihood of
    Independence Joint Venture v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp, 
    489 U.S. 561
    , 587 (1989) ("Administrative remedies that are inadequate need
    not be exhausted."); Sousa v. INS, 
    226 F.3d 28
    , 32 (1st Cir. 2000)
    (no exhaustion requirement "where a resort to the agency would be
    futile because the challenge is one that the agency has no power to
    resolve in the applicant's favor").
    -16-
    success on the merits, plaintiffs must show "more than mere
    possibility" of success - rather, they must establish a "strong
    likelihood" that they will ultimately prevail.           Respect Maine
    PAC, 622 F.3d at 15 (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
    Inc., 
    555 U.S. 7
    , 21 (2008)).
    A. The Obligation To Address the Plaintiffs' Likelihood of Success
    on the Merits
    The district court declined to address the plaintiffs'
    likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment
    claims, stating that the remaining three factors of the standard
    weighed against the grant of equitable relief.      Defendants urge us
    to adopt a similar course of action.
    This we cannot do.    In the First Amendment context, the
    likelihood of success on the merits is the linchpin of the
    preliminary   injunction    analysis.    As   the   Supreme    Court    has
    explained, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even
    minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
    injury."     Elrod v. Burns, 
    427 U.S. 347
    , 373 (1976); see also
    Asociación    de   Educación   Privada   de   Puerto   Rico,    Inc.     v.
    García-Padilla, 
    490 F.3d 1
    , 21 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Elrod to
    irreparable harm component of permanent injunction analysis);
    Maceira v. Pagan, 
    649 F.2d 8
    , 18 (1st Cir. 1981) ("It is well
    established that the loss of first amendment freedoms constitutes
    irreparable    injury.").      Accordingly,   irreparable      injury    is
    -17-
    presumed upon a determination that the movants are likely to
    prevail on their First Amendment claim.
    It was therefore incumbent upon the district court to
    engage with the merits before moving on to the remaining prongs of
    its analysis.    The court's stated reason for not doing so was that
    addressing the merits was inappropriate on an "incomplete record,"
    and that "engag[ing] in the in-depth analysis required" further
    factual development.      To the contrary, a facial challenge to a
    statute presents a question of law that the district court could
    and should have resolved on the present record.               See New Eng.
    Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Kinton, 
    284 F.3d 9
    , 19 (1st Cir.
    2002) (stating that facial challenge to regulation presents "pure
    question   of   law");   see   also    Ctr.   for   Individual    Freedom   v.
    Carmouche, 
    449 F.3d 655
    , 662 (5th Cir. 2006) (stating that "facial
    challenge to the constitutionality of a statute presents a pure
    question of law").
    B.   Likelihood of Success
    1. Standard of Review
    Despite its refusal to consider the merits, the district
    court stated that the plaintiffs' challenge to Law 222 should be
    analyzed, in whole or in part, under the "exacting" scrutiny
    standard applicable to disclaimer and disclosure requirements.
    See Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914; see also Daggett, 205 F.3d
    at   454   (applying     exacting      scrutiny     to   limits   on   direct
    -18-
    contributions).7         Plaintiffs disagree, contending that strict
    scrutiny governs their claims.
    Laws that burden political speech ordinarily are subject
    to strict scrutiny, requiring the government to prove that any
    restriction "'furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly
    tailored to achieve that interest.'"           Citizens United, 130 S. Ct.
    at 898 (quoting Fed. Elect. Comm'n v. Wisc. Right To Life, Inc.,
    
    551 U.S. 449
    , 464 (2007)).              The Supreme Court applied          that
    standard to the regulation at issue in Citizens United, which
    restricted      the    ability   of   corporations     and   unions   to   make
    independent expenditures in connection with political campaigns.
    After      rejecting   any   distinction     between   natural   persons    and
    corporate persons under the First Amendment, id. at 904, the Court
    noted that "[t]he purpose and effect of th[e challenged] law is to
    prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations,
    from presenting both facts and opinions to the public."                Id. at
    907.       The Court observed:
    When Government seeks to use its full power,
    including the criminal law, to command where
    a person may get his or her information or
    what distrusted source he or she may not hear,
    7
    Although the basis for the district court's conclusion is
    not clear, it appeared to believe that the unions' challenge
    encompassed an attack on Law 222's disclaimer and disclosure
    requirements. In fact, plaintiffs asserted no challenge to Law
    222's disclosure-related requirements before the district court,
    and reiterate this position on appeal.    Those requirements are
    therefore irrelevant, and the district court erred in relying on
    them in its discussion of the appropriate standard of review.
    -19-
    it uses censorship to control thought. This
    is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the
    freedom to think for ourselves.
    Id. at 908.       The law therefore struck at the heart of core First
    Amendment protections and could not withstand strict scrutiny.
    The    Court   explained,   however,    that    not    all   laws
    purporting    to    regulate   election-related    spending      are   treated
    similarly.    In certain circumstances, regulations designed "to
    ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption," such as
    those capping direct contributions to political candidates or
    those imposing disclosure requirements on donors, are subject to
    the more lenient "exacting scrutiny" review.         Id. at 908; see also
    Buckley v. Valeo, 
    424 U.S. 1
    , 26-29 (1976).8              While disclosure
    requirements,      for   example,   similarly   "burden    the    ability   to
    speak," Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914, they "impose no
    ceiling on campaign related activities and do not prevent anyone
    from speaking." Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks
    omitted).     Caps on direct contributions, for their part, are
    justified by their "limited effect upon First Amendment freedoms,"
    as compared to the "weighty interest" in avoiding corruption or
    the appearance of corruption.        Buckley, 424 U.S. at 29.
    8
    Under exacting scrutiny, the government would bear the
    burden of demonstrating that "(1) the statute as a whole . . .
    serve[s] a compelling governmental interest, and (2) a substantial
    nexus . . . exist[s] between the served interest and the
    information to be revealed." Daggett, 205 F.3d at 464 (citation
    omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    -20-
    Law 222's challenged provisions plainly are more like
    the regulation given strict scrutiny by the Supreme Court in
    Citizens   United   than    the    contribution       limits    and    disclosure
    requirements afforded less stringent review.                   Law 222 imposes
    substantial burdens on the very process through which a juridical
    person determines whether and how to exercise its free speech
    rights.    On its face, Law 222 forbids juridical persons from
    spending   any   money     on   political       campaigns,     be   they     direct
    contributions, independent expenditures, or otherwise, without the
    process the statute prescribes.               These provisions are backed by
    criminal sanctions, administrative penalties of up to $30,000 per
    day, and other mechanisms designed to ensure strict compliance.
    Indeed, a violation of section 6.010 can subject a juridical
    person's   "highest      ranking        official"     to   personal     financial
    liability for any violations, even if that individual lacked
    knowledge of the violation in question.
    To avoid these unusually harsh sanctions, juridical
    persons "have to comply with these regulations just to speak."
    Citizens United,      130 S.      Ct.    at    897.    To adopt       the   Court's
    language, by forbidding juridical persons from exercising their
    speech rights without first complying with onerous governance
    procedures, the provisions "'necessarily reduce[] the quantity of
    expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the
    -21-
    depth    of   their    exploration,      and    the    size        of    the   audience
    reached.'"      Id. at 898 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 19).
    Law   222     reaches    deep     into    the    mechanics        of   an
    organization's        own      self-governance         and     imposes         numerous
    requirements on the organization's internal processes.                         In doing
    so, it seeks to dictate the terms and circumstances under which
    they    are   permitted        to   express    political      opinions.          Stated
    differently, Law 222's challenged provisions are designed to
    regulate the if and how of a juridical person's political speech.
    It is difficult to conceive of a statute that strikes more deeply
    at a juridical person's core First Amendment rights. Accordingly,
    strict scrutiny applies.
    2. Application of Strict Scrutiny to Law 222
    "Under strict scrutiny, [defendants] must prove that
    [the statute] . . . furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly
    tailored to achieve that interest."             Wisc. Right To Life, 551 U.S.
    at 464.    "Especially where, as here, a prohibition is directed at
    speech itself, and the speech is intimately related to the process
    of governing, . . . the burden is on the government, [rather than
    the     plaintiffs],      to    show   the    existence       of    [a     compelling]
    interest."     Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 786 (internal citation omitted)
    (quotation marks omitted).
    Due to defendants' failure to present any defense to the
    unions' claims, the only conceivable interest we can identify is
    -22-
    described in the following paragraph of Law 222's Statement of
    Motives:9
    [C]ertain criteria and requirements shall be
    established to ensure that the members of
    those entities are duly informed of any
    political statements that could be issued by
    such entities on their behalf and at their
    expense. By setting forth clear and effective
    guidelines on this matter, the members of
    juridical entities are provided with the
    necessary information for them to give their
    informed consent. The State, by means of this
    Act, seeks to implement openness and clarity
    as the public policy that shall govern
    election processes.
    Thus,    Law       222   purports   to   foster     democratic     decisionmaking
    processes      within      juridical     persons    and   to    ensure        that   any
    political speech that they make is given with their members' full
    and informed consent.
    As admirable as this policy goal may be, Citizens United
    addressed      a    similar   interest      and   concluded     that     it    was   not
    sufficiently compelling.            There, the government asserted that
    independent        expenditures     could    be    limited     because    dissenting
    9
    The district court discussed a part of the Statement of
    Motives that addressed the need to "better identify and prevent
    corrupt and unlawful actions" and emphasized the value of
    "transparency on [sic] the voting system of Puerto Rico," so that
    the "People know who provides funding for campaign activities and
    advertisements intended to sway their opinion." This part of the
    Statement appears to address the statute's disclosure requirements,
    which are not at issue here. Defendants do not assert that Law
    222's authorization requirements are justified by an interest in
    transparency to the public at large, nor is a connection between
    the challenged provisions and such an interest evident.
    Consequently, we do not rely on this part of the Statement in
    identifying the government interest at stake.
    -23-
    shareholders needed protection "from being compelled to fund
    corporate political speech."                  130 S. Ct. at 911.            The Court was
    unconvinced, noting that there was "little evidence of abuse that
    cannot be corrected by shareholders 'through the procedures of
    corporate democracy.'"              Id. (quoting Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 794).
    Similarly,    there      has     been     no    invocation     here      of   legislative
    findings that juridical persons are engaging in abuse of their
    internal procedures in order to suppress the speech of their
    dissenting members, or that their internal governance mechanisms
    are insufficient to address such concerns.                        We therefore cannot
    accept     this    rationale         as   a    justification       for      the   statute.
    Even   if     Law      222's      provisions     were     justified       by   a
    compelling    interest         in    fostering        juridical    persons'       internal
    democratic procedures, the statute is far from narrowly tailored
    to meet that end.          The most problematic aspect of the statute is
    section    6.010,     which         describes        the   detailed    scheme      that     a
    juridical person must comply with in making any election-related
    expenditures. Among other requirements, the juridical person must
    hold a membership meeting, where the members must vote to approve
    any   "use    of     the     money        or    property      of      the     entity    for
    election-related purposes."10                 The members "shall be informed of
    10
    Section 2.004(42) of Law 222 defines "Membership" or
    "Members" as "persons entitled to vote in a juridical person such
    as shareholders, partners, members subject to membership fees and
    who are entitled to vote in the entity in question." Although the
    statute repeatedly refers to "members," it is clear that      its
    -24-
    the purposes of the electioneering communication or communications
    that shall be paid for, including the specific purpose of the
    messages to be transmitted and the amount of money that shall be
    earmarked to such campaign," and the members must "be clearly
    informed of whether they, as an organization, intend to support,
    oppose, or advocate for the election or defeat of a political
    party, ideology, aspirant, or candidate."               What is more, "a
    majority plus one" of the juridical person's members not only must
    attend   this    membership   meeting,     but   also   must   approve   the
    election-related expenditure before funds can be disbursed.
    If these restrictions were not burdensome enough, Puerto
    Rico's   election     comptroller   has    issued    regulations    further
    defining the statute's terms.         See Government of Puerto Rico,
    Office   of     the   Electoral   Comptroller,      Regulations    No.   16,
    Regulations to Incur Independent Expenditures and to Establish a
    Segregated Funds Committee (2012) [hereinafter "Regulations"].
    These regulations require the "membership meeting" to be "an
    assembly to be held simultaneously in various jurisdictions or
    geographic areas provided they are held on the same day up to
    12:00 midnight," Regulations, § 7.4 (emphasis added), meaning that
    restrictions apply to individuals who hold some form of ownership
    interest or voting stake in entities such as corporations and
    partnerships.    See also id. § 2.004(56) (defining "juridical
    person" as "includ[ing] corporations, limited liability companies,
    partnerships, cooperatives, trusts, groups of persons organized as
    an association, and labor organizations").
    -25-
    "a majority plus one" of the entity's members must meet on the
    same day (although not necessarily in the same location).                 The
    only issue that can be discussed at this congregation is the
    expenditure for election-related purposes.               Additionally, the
    regulations require that the "maximum amount" to be expended must
    be stated in the notice calling for the meeting, as well as
    disclosed to the members at the meeting.              Regulations, § 7.3.
    Moreover, noncompliance subjects a juridical person to an array of
    sanctions, including daily fines, penalties against the person's
    highest ranking official, and makes "payment in violation of the
    provisions of [the statute]" a felony punishable by criminal
    fines.
    Law 222 therefore piles burden upon burden in its effort
    to restrict the political speech of juridical persons, without any
    indication that these measures are remotely necessary to meet the
    articulated government interest.             Leaving aside the draconian
    nature of the civil and criminal penalties at issue, the rationale
    for many of its requirements is difficult to fathom.               Why is it
    necessary to require a single collective membership meeting to
    discuss campaign expenditures, or to demand that a majority of the
    membership be present to approve election-related expenditures?
    Why   must   all   members   meet   on   a   single   day?   Why   must   the
    membership discuss only the election-related expenditure at this
    meeting and decline to address any other subjects?            Even if some
    -26-
    measure of restriction on juridical persons' internal procedures
    were justified, why these specific procedures, and toward what
    end?    Given their refusal to defend the merits of such provisions,
    defendants leave all of these crucial questions unanswered.                       In
    the    absence          of   a   discernible   rationale    for   the   challenged
    provisions, we cannot presently conclude that the challenged
    provisions are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state
    interest.
    In sum, Law 222's challenged provisions are not likely
    to withstand strict scrutiny.               For the reasons stated, the unions
    have demonstrated a strong likelihood that they will succeed on
    their First Amendment challenge to Law 222.11
    3.     Potential for Irreparable Injury
    There is no need for an extensive analysis of this
    element          of    the   preliminary   injunction   inquiry.        Because   we
    conclude that plaintiffs have made a strong showing of likelihood
    of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim, it
    follows that the irreparable injury component of the preliminary
    injunction analysis is satisfied as well.                  See Elrod, 427 U.S. at
    373; Maceira, 649 F.2d at 18 ("It is well established that the
    loss        of    first      amendment     freedoms   constitutes       irreparable
    injury."); see also Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 
    545 F.3d 685
    , 690 (8th
    11
    Because we conclude that the unions' First Amendment claims
    are likely to succeed on their merits, we do not address their
    contention that the statute as drafted is void for vagueness.
    -27-
    Cir. 2008) ("If [plaintiff] can establish a sufficient likelihood
    of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim, she will
    also   have    established      irreparable     harm    as   a    result   of   the
    deprivation."). The district court therefore erred in its finding
    that plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable
    injury. See Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minn. v. Minneapolis
    Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 
    690 F.3d 996
    , 1004 (8th Cir. 2012)
    (holding that district court's error in finding that plaintiff did
    not establish high likelihood of success on the merits of its
    First Amendment claim meant that it necessarily erred in its
    finding that plaintiff did not establish irreparable harm).
    4.    Balance of Harms and Public Interest
    The    district   court    blended     the     third   and   fourth
    components of the preliminary injunction analysis and determined
    that the balance of the equities and the public interest justified
    denial   of    the     injunction.       The    court   determined     that     the
    government     would    be   stripped    of    its   tools   to   implement     its
    informational interest and the public would be left uninformed.
    As noted, this finding is based on a misapprehension by the
    district court of the scope of plaintiffs' challenge to Law 222,
    since plaintiffs have explicitly disavowed any challenge to the
    law's accounting, disclosure, and reporting requirements.
    Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United
    that the suppression of political speech harms not only the
    -28-
    speaker, but also the public to whom the speech would be directed:
    "The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use
    information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened
    self-government and a necessary means to protect it."                  130 S. Ct.
    at   898.      To   deprive   plaintiffs of the         right      to speak     will
    therefore have the concomitant effect of depriving "the public of
    the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and
    speakers      are   worthy    of   consideration."      Id.     at   899.       This
    deprivation     would   be    especially      significant     in     the   election
    context.      Id. ("[I]t is inherent in the nature of the political
    process that voters must be free to obtain information from
    diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.").
    The district court failed to consider the interest of the public
    in having a robust debate on the issues of concern to plaintiffs.
    In further explanation of its denial of the preliminary
    injunction, the district court relied heavily on our decision in
    Respect Maine PAC in support of its two central findings: (1) that
    granting plaintiffs' requested relief would cause substantial
    disruption, and (2) that plaintiffs' alleged delay in bringing the
    action      justified   the   denial    of    relief.     This       reliance    was
    misplaced.      Respect Maine PAC concerned a public matching-funds
    scheme for candidates for state office.                  Under that scheme,
    candidates had to declare early in their campaigns whether to
    accept public matching funds.            If a candidate opted in to the
    -29-
    public funds scheme, she had to agree to abide by certain rules,
    including a $750 cap on individual contributions.           See Cushing v.
    McKee, 
    738 F. Supp. 2d 146
    , 148-49 (D. Me. 2010) (describing
    provisions of Maine public matching-funds scheme).               By the time
    the   plaintiffs   in   Respect   Maine    PAC   filed   their    complaint,
    candidates for state office had been on the campaign trail for
    more than eight months, and roughly 280 candidates had opted in to
    the scheme.   See Maine PAC, 622 F.3d at 16.
    The instant case is easily distinguished from Respect
    Maine PAC on the issues of timing and delay.             The law at issue
    there had been in place for more than a decade and had endured
    several election cycles.      Id.    At the time the complaint in the
    instant case was filed, Law 222 was only seven-and-a-half months
    old, and it was a response to Citizens United, which dramatically
    changed prior law on the First Amendment rights of corporations
    and unions.   As already noted, there is evidence in the record
    that since Law 222 was passed, the unions have been consistently
    developing their platform and campaign plans.
    Moreover, the consequences of disrupting the public
    financing scheme at issue in Respect Maine PAC in the crucial
    weeks before the campaign would have been significant and chaotic,
    largely because granting the injunction would have altered rules
    that candidates and the public had rightfully relied upon for
    years.   See Respect Maine PAC, 622 F.3d at 16.            In the instant
    -30-
    case, there is simply no evidence that any such disruption would
    occur.    The only consequence of this injunction will be that
    juridical persons who were unlawfully prevented from engaging in
    political speech will now be able to engage in such speech.
    V. Conclusion
    On October 11, 2012, we granted plaintiffs' motion for
    an appellate injunction pending the disposition of this appeal.
    That order enjoined enforcement of Sections 6.007-.010 of Law 222.
    Now that we have resolved the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal, we
    hereby   dissolve     the   appellate   injunction          and    remand   to     the
    district court with instructions to enter the following order
    forthwith:
    The defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing the
    following provisions of Law 222: 1) Section 6.010 in
    full; 2) the provision of Section 6.007 that states,
    "[i]n order for a juridical person to be able to
    establish a segregated committee or fund for these
    purposes, it must comply with the limitations and
    requirements set forth in Section 6.010 of this Chapter";
    and 3) the provision of Section 6.009 that states "[t]o
    make contributions or incur in this type of expenditures,
    a juridical person must obtain authorization of the
    majority vote of its members, as provided in Section
    6.010 of this Act.
    We do not enjoin the enforcement of Section 6.008, which
    sets limits for contributions from segregated committees and
    political    action    committees.          Those        limits    have   not    been
    challenged    here.    Similarly,    nothing        in    our     order   should    be
    construed    to   undermine   any   disclosure           requirements      in   other
    -31-
    sections of Law 222. These requirements are also unchallenged
    here.
    Mandate shall issue forthwith.
    So ordered.
    -32-
    Statutory Appendix
    Law No. 222, P.R. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, §§ 625g–625j.
    Section 6.007.-Juridical Persons.-
    No juridical person shall make contributions out [sic] its own
    resources in or outside Puerto Rico to any political party,
    aspirant, candidate, campaign committee, or to any authorized
    agent, representative, or committee thereof, or to political
    action   committees   that  make   contributions   or   coordinate
    expenditures among them. However, it may establish, organize, and
    administer a committee, to be known as a segregated committee or
    fund that, for the purposes of contributions and expenditures,
    shall be treated as a public action committee that must be
    registered in the Office of the Election Comptroller, render
    reports, and comply with all requirements imposed under this Act.
    Thus, its members, employees, and their immediate family or
    related persons may make contributions that shall be deposited in
    the account established and registered in the Office of the
    Election Comptroller. In order for a juridical person to be able
    to establish a segregated committee or fund for these purposes, it
    must comply with the limitations and requirements set forth in
    Section 6.010 of this Chapter. The committee, organization, or
    citizen group may make donations from said account to political
    parties, aspirants, candidates, and campaign committees and
    authorized committees, as well as to political action committees
    making contributions to any of them.
    P.R. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 625g.
    Section 6.008.-Limits for Segregated Committees and Public Action
    Committees.-
    Segregated committees or funds may make contributions to any
    political party, aspirant, candidate, campaign committee, and
    authorized committees, and to any authorized agent and
    representative thereof, provided that the contributions do not
    exceed the limits established in this Act for natural persons or
    aggregates. These limits shall also apply to contributions made by
    members to a juridical person that shall use them to make a
    contribution to a political party, aspirant, candidate, campaign
    committee, and authorized committee, or to any authorized agent
    and representative thereof. Two (2) or more political action
    committees shall be deemed to be one (1) single committee if they
    have been established by the same person or group of persons, are
    controlled by the same person or group of persons, or share
    officials, directors, or employees.
    -33-
    P.R. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 625h.
    Section 6.009.-Independent Expenditures.-
    Nothing in this Act shall limit contributions of money or anything
    of value made for election-related purposes to natural persons,
    juridical persons, or political action committees that do not
    contribute or incur coordinated expenditures with political
    parties, aspirants, candidates, campaign committees, or authorized
    committees, or with any authorized agent and representative
    thereof. However, in these cases, the provisions of Section 6.001
    of this Act shall apply. To make contributions or incur in this
    type of expenditures, a juridical person must obtain the
    authorization of the majority vote of its members, as provided in
    Section 6.010 of this Act.
    P.R. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 625i.
    Section 6.010.-Authorization to Establish a Segregated Committee
    or Fund or to Incur Expenditures of Election-related Purposes.-
    1. The juridical person must hold a membership meeting. The call
    for such meeting shall be issued fifteen (15) days before the
    holding thereof and shall only include this authorization purpose.
    2. At the meeting, the majority plus one of the total members of
    the entity, whether a corporation, cooperative, partnership,
    association, or labor organization, shall approve by direct and
    secret vote the use of the money or property of the entity for
    election-related purposes. Under no circumstances shall a vote
    that has not been cast be counted as a vote in favor of the use of
    money or the property for election-related purposes.
    3. For such authorization, the members shall be informed of the
    purposes of the electioneering communication or communications
    that shall be paid for, including the specific purpose of the
    messages to be transmitted and the amount of money that shall be
    earmarked to such campaign. Before voting at the meeting, the
    members shall be clearly informed of whether they, as an
    organization, intend to support, oppose, or advocate for the
    election or defeat or a political party, ideology, aspirant, or
    candidate. No organizational structures shall be created to evade
    the requirement of obtaining the informed consent of the members
    of any juridical person.
    4. The board of directors and the highest ranking official of the
    juridical person in question shall certify, under oath and under
    penalty of contempt, that all the requirements of this Section
    were met. The certification shall include the notice sent to all
    -34-
    members and the date thereof, the date and the place of the
    meeting, the total number of members of the juridical person, the
    number of members that attended the meeting, the exact results of
    the voting, and an accurate and detailed description of the
    information regarding the amount of money or property that was
    approved. This sworn certification shall state the veracity and
    accuracy of the information furnished. In addition, the Election
    Comptroller shall immediately publish said certification over the
    Internet.
    5. Said certification shall be remitted, on the business day
    following the voting, to the Office of the Election Comptroller.
    After obtaining the corresponding authorization and remitting the
    aforementioned certification, the entity shall register in the
    Office of the Election Comptroller as an entity that intends to
    incur expenditures for election-related purposes or make
    contributions,   and   render  the   appropriate   reports.   The
    registration of such entity shall be carried out according to the
    demands and requirements of a Political Action Committee.
    6. Any executive, director, manager, managing partner, and the
    highest ranking official thereof at the time the contribution or
    expenditure was made for election-related purposes in violation of
    this Section shall be responsible for compensating the juridical
    person ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or the amount of the
    contribution or expenditure, plus any lawfully applicable
    interest, whichever is higher. This responsibility shall be
    separate and independent from any other fine or offense set forth
    in this or any other Act. Any member of the juridical person may
    request the refund established in this Section to the Court. Any
    member of the juridical person may file a complaint, under oath,
    with the Office of the Election Comptroller to report any
    violations of this Section, or resort to the Court in the event
    that his/her complaint is not addressed.
    7. This process may be regulated by the Office of the Election
    Comptroller subject to the requirements of this Act.
    P.R. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 625j.
    -35-