ADAMS et al v. MAINE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

Filing 39

ORDER dismissing without prejudice 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing without prejudice 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARY ADAMS, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
MAINE MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, )
)
Defendant.
)

1:10-cv-00258-JAW

ORDER DISMISSING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the Plaintiffs claim that the Maine Municipal
Association (MMA) violated their constitutional rights by taking sides in citizen
initiatives and expending public funds for partisan political activity. The MMA
defends itself by saying its actions constitute government speech. To be protected
as government speech, the speaker must be part of government and the record is
insufficient to determine whether MMA is an arm of government.

The Court

dismisses without prejudice the dueling motions for summary judgment.
I.

THE GOVERNMENT SPEECH DOCTRINE AND THE MMA
The parties moved separately for summary judgment with arguments

centering on whether the MMA’s lobbying efforts and related actions opposing
several tax reform initiatives are government speech. To reach this issue, the Court
must first determine whether the MMA is, in fact, an entity of the government. The
parties’ voluminous statements of material facts (and voluminous objections) are

insufficient to determine whether the MMA is a governmental, quasi-governmental,
or private entity.
For example, the Plaintiffs varyingly refer to the MMA as a “municipal
league,” Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 16,
Attach 1 (Docket # 21) (PSMF), a “nonprofit governmental organization,” PSMF ¶
27, a “public entity,” Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. with Incorporated Mem. of Law at 11,
13 (Docket # 21) (Pls.’ Mot.); Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. Judgment at 2, 15
(Docket # 28) (Pls. Opp’n), an “instrumentality of local government,” Pls.’ Mot. at 12,
and “a creature of municipal government by statute, funding, governance and
membership.” Id. at 12.
By contrast, the MMA describes itself as “a voluntary membership
organization offering numerous professional services to municipalities and local
government entities,” Statement of Undisputed Material Facts of Def. Me. Mun.
Ass’n in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 5 (Docket # 24) (DSMF); Pls.’ Opposing
Statement of Material Facts and Add’l Facts ¶ 5, Attach 1 (Docket # 28) (PODSMF),
a “state municipal league,” DSMF ¶ 13, a “legislatively-endorsed advocate for the
interests of Maine’s municipal governments,” Mem. of Law of Def. Me. Mun. Ass’n in
Support of its Mot. for Summ. J. at 2 (Docket # 23) (Def.’s Mem.), “not a public
agency.” Def.’s Mem. at 33, “a private corporation existing under the general
nonstock corporation provisions” of the Maine Revised Statutes, Def.’s Mem. at 33,
and a “nonprofit advisory organization to Maine’s municipalities.” Def.’s Mem. at 4.

2

The parties’ descriptions of the MMA’s role in the tax reform initiatives are
inconsistent and disputed.

The MMA states that it registered and reorganized

PACs to distribute campaign messages to oppose ballot initiatives that would have
had a direct impact on the functioning of municipal government, DSMF ¶¶ 63-64,
102; PODSMF ¶¶ 63-64, and asserts that “[i]t is undisputed that the MMA
effectively controlled the message disseminated by the Citizen Initiative PACs.”
Def.’s Mem. at 18. The Plaintiffs respond that the MMA did not have control over
the political action committees (PACs) whose actions they claim were unlawful.
Pls.’ Opp’n at 6.
Furthermore, the MMA’s funding and membership structure raises questions
about its status.

A portion of its revenue is derived from dues from municipal

members, PSMF ¶ 22, and a portion is derived from administrative fees charged by
several affiliated insurance trusts that provide insurance to municipalities. PSMF
¶¶ 24, 31.

While the bulk of the MMA’s membership consists of Maine

municipalities, it is also comprised of other regional municipal associations,
municipal professional organizations may join as “affiliates,” and private
individuals, students, professionals, and businesses may join as “patrons.” DSMF ¶
6; PODSMF ¶ 6.
The parties’ highly controverted statements of material facts do not permit
the Court to make the necessary preliminary determination as to whether the MMA
is, in fact, a government entity and, if so, the degree of control the MMA exercises
over the PACs. The Court has therefore dismissed without prejudice the pending

3

dispositive motions and will schedule a conference to discuss how to best resolve
this case.1
II.

CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket # 21) and Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Maine
Municipal Association (Docket # 22).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of September, 2011

The Plaintiffs raised some non-constitutional issues but the resolution of those issues depends, as
well, on MMA’s identity.
1

4