Havens v. James
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
2023 WL 4982318, 76 F.4th 103 (2023)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
In 2005, a federal district court entered a permanent injunction, known as the Arcara Injunction, against several pro-life advocates. The injunction prohibited the named defendants from entering the public sidewalk within 15 feet of any abortion clinic in the Western District of New York and from aiding and abetting others to do the same. In 2017, Jim Havens (plaintiff) began sidewalk counseling outside a Planned Parenthood in Rochester, New York. Unaware of the Arcara Injunction, he formed an advocacy group called ROC Love Will End Abortion and continued his activities within the 15-foot buffer zone the injunction had established. Letitia James, the Attorney General of the State of New York, and the City of Rochester (collectively, James) (defendants) informed Havens that he and ROC were bound by the Arcara Injunction and were prohibited from entering the buffer zone. To clarify his rights, Havens filed suit, seeking a declaration that neither he nor ROC was subject to the injunction. He also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement against himself and ROC. James moved to dismiss. The district court granted James’s motion and denied Havens’s, finding that although Havens was not a named party to the Arcara Injunction, his actions benefited several enjoined parties, placing him in active concert or participation with those parties. Havens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Menashi, J.)
Dissent (Lohier, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

