ACLJ Files Lawsuit To Strike Down Unconstitutional Law Used To Criminalize Advocacy for Unborn Babies in Ohio City

The ACLJ is taking decisive action to defend the constitutional rights of pro-life advocates who faced discriminatory enforcement and wrongful arrest for peacefully exercising their First Amendment freedoms. We’ve told you about our defense of the Knotts family, who faced criminal charges for simply advocating for the lives of unborn babies outside an abortion clinic. As the trial began, with a packed courtroom watching, the prosecution folded. It dismissed the wrongful criminal charges entirely.

Now we’ve gone on the offensive to defend pro-life advocacy. We’ve filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Zack and Lindsay Knotts, challenging their unconstitutional arrest and an unconstitutional city ordinance that silences disfavored speakers while protecting those with opposing viewpoints.

The Story So Far

What happened to the Knotts family in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, represents a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination – an egregious violation of the First Amendment. The shocking details of their treatment reveal a deliberate pattern of government censorship based solely on the content of their pro-life message.

On December 28, 2024, the Knotts traveled to the Northeast Ohio Women’s Center, an abortion clinic, to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights, engaging in sidewalk evangelism and pro-life advocacy. What happened next exposed a troubling pattern of government officials weaponizing local ordinances to silence religious and pro-life speech.

Zack used a battery-powered megaphone – quieter than ambient traffic noise – to share his life-affirming message from a public sidewalk. Meanwhile, abortion clinic escorts actively worked to drown out his speech using their own sound devices, including whistles and kazoos, while making threats against the couple.

One escort even told Zack to “suck-start a shotgun.” During a previous encounter, Zack had told escorts how his mother-in-law had considered an abortion while pregnant with his now wife, and if she had gone through with it, his wife “should be dead.” An escort interrupted, stating, “We can fix that.”

Despite this harassment and the escorts’ use of the same types of sound devices prohibited by the city’s noise ordinance, only Zack was arrested and cited.

The Discriminatory Arrest

The circumstances of Zack’s arrest reveal the true motivation behind the police action:

1. A Biased Complaint: A nearby resident supposedly called the police complaining specifically about Zack’s pro-life message – notably, she did not complain about the escorts’ kazoos and whistles, only the pro-life speech.

2. No Firsthand Witness: The arresting officers, Sergeant Dobney and Officer Paratore, never personally witnessed Zack using the megaphone. By the time they arrived, the megaphone’s batteries had already died. So they could not possibly have known if his megaphone was loud enough to violate the ordinance – which it wasn’t.

3. A Biased Investigation: The police only took a statement from Officer Oldham, who was working off-duty as private security for the abortion clinic – creating an obvious conflict of interest. No other witnesses were questioned.

4. Selective Enforcement: Despite knowledge of the escorts’ threats, noise-making, and harassment, only Zack was arrested, cited, and prosecuted.

5. Chilling Threats: When Lindsay tried to report the threats against her husband, she was told they were “not a crime.” Sergeant Dobney then threatened that Zack would be arrested again if he caused “annoyance” in the future – even without amplified sound.

The impact of this unconstitutional enforcement extends far beyond one arrest. The Knotts now fear exercising their constitutional rights, knowing they face arrest while their opponents remain free to engage in identical or worse conduct. This chilling effect on protected speech is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. When citizens must self-censor their constitutionally protected speech due to fear of government retaliation, the Constitution has been violated.

An Ordinance Designed To Discriminate

Cuyahoga Falls’ Ordinance § 509.03(a)(6) prohibits amplified sound that might cause “inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities” – vague language that invites arbitrary enforcement. But the biggest constitutional problem lies in the ordinance’s exemptions, which favor certain organizations while discriminating against individual citizens. The law specifically exempts amplified sound from educational organizations and charitable organizations, for example.

This creates an impermissible hierarchy of speakers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government cannot grant preferred status to certain speakers while silencing others, especially in traditional public forums like sidewalks.

Three Constitutional Violations, One Clear Pattern of Discrimination

Our lawsuit challenges this discriminatory ordinance on several constitutional grounds. In our motion for preliminary injunction, we reveal three distinct ways Cuyahoga Falls’ ordinance violates the Constitution:

1.   Facial Invalidity Under the First Amendment: The ordinance’s speaker-based exemptions transform what should be a content-neutral noise regulation into an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech. Such regulations are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny – a test this ordinance clearly fails. This creates a two-tiered system where politically favored institutions can use amplification freely, but individual citizens exercising their constitutional rights cannot.

2.    Unconstitutional Vagueness: The ordinance prohibits causing “inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm” through “unreasonable noise” – but fails to define any of these subjective terms. What constitutes “unreasonable noise”? What level of “annoyance” triggers enforcement? The law provides no guidance, leaving enforcement entirely to the personal discretion of police officers.

   This vagueness creates exactly the kind of arbitrary enforcement we witnessed: Zack’s amplified pro-life message was deemed “unreasonable,” while equally loud pro-abortion counter-protesters using musical instruments specifically mentioned in the ordinance faced no consequences.

3.   Viewpoint Discrimination: The selective enforcement against pro-life speakers while tolerating identical or worse conduct from pro-abortion advocates constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Most troubling of all is the selective enforcement pattern. The Knotts and abortion escorts were engaged in directly comparable conduct – using sound devices to amplify their messages on the same public sidewalk. Yet only the pro-life speakers faced arrest and prosecution.

   When Lindsay informed officers about the threats made against them, she was told these statements were “not a crime” – while her husband sat in the back of a police cruiser for using a megaphone.

One of the central cases we rely on to defend pro-life advocates is our very own victory against an abortion buffer zone law in Louisville, Kentucky. That court decision requiring an injunction against a speech-suppressing buffer zone is crucial to holding the government accountable for vague laws that infringe on speech. The First Amendment demands that pro-life advocates have their rights protected.

Why This Case Matters

This lawsuit represents more than just one family’s fight for justice – it’s about preserving fundamental constitutional principles that protect all Americans.

The government prosecuted Zack for months before ultimately dismissing the case on the day of trial – but only after the constitutional damage was done. The arrest, prosecution, and ongoing threat of future enforcement have already achieved the government’s apparent goal: silencing disfavored speech.

This case exemplifies why the ACLJ exists: to defend the constitutional rights of Americans against government overreach and discrimination. We refuse to allow local officials to use vague ordinances as weapons against unpopular speech, and we will not stand by while religious and pro-life voices are silenced through selective enforcement.

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee freedom from annoyance or inconvenience – it guarantees freedom of speech, especially for unpopular viewpoints that challenge the status quo. When government officials start deciding which messages deserve protection based on their own preferences, we’re all at risk.

Our lawsuit seeks:

• A declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional
• An injunction preventing future discriminatory enforcement
• Compensation for constitutional violations
• Return of Zack’s seized megaphone
• Attorney’s fees under federal civil rights law

The Broader Battle for Religious Freedom

This case is part of a larger assault on religious freedom and pro-life speech across America. From college campuses to city sidewalks, government officials are increasingly willing to silence religious viewpoints while protecting secular ones.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment does not permit the government to make such distinctions. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court emphasized that content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that viewpoint discrimination is an “egregious form of content discrimination.”

These precedents are clear: The government cannot silence speakers based on the religious or political content of their message.

The Knotts family courageously chose to stand up for their constitutional rights rather than submit to government censorship. Their willingness to challenge this discrimination in federal court will help protect the rights of all Americans to engage in peaceful religious and political expression.

Your support enables the ACLJ to take on these critical cases without charging our clients, ensuring that constitutional rights aren’t limited to those who can afford expensive litigation. Together, we can continue fighting for the fundamental freedoms that make America exceptional.