Mark Stuart v. Jim Lane, et al.

First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive and prosper. Consequently, ". regulatory measures. no matter how sophisticated, . . cannot be employed in purpose or in effect to stifle, penalize, or curb the exercise of First Amendment rights." NAACP v Button, 371 U.S. 415, 439 (1963) In this case, Petitioner Mark Stuart, brought a meritorious public interest lawsuit seeking to void a land lease because it violated the Scottsdale city charter and the Arizona Constitution. Stuart was sanctioned twenty-six thousand dollars, ($26,207), under Rule 68, solely because he declined the city of Scottsdale's sham offer of judgment for dismissal. Delta Airlines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 353-355 (1981) Below, the city of Scottsdale candidly admitted that it sought the sanctions to discourage the lawsuit from being pursued and to punish Stuart because he pursued the lawsuit. Scottsdale offered no compelling state interests or even a legitimate state interest for seeking Rule 68 sanctions. The questions presented are the following: Whether Sanctioning Stuart under Rule 68, Arizona rules of civil procedure, and taxing him with the city of Scottsdale's costs, violated his First Amendment Rights to Petition for Redress of Grievances and to Free Speech; Whether Rule 68 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure is unconstitutionally broad, thus violating the First Amendment;