LISBON

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday barring the Maine Attorney General and Portland police from enforcing a noise provision in the Maine Human Rights Act because it may be unconstitutional.

It is unclear how it might impact the AG’s lawsuit against a Lisbon man and abortion protester, charging he violated the Maine Human Rights Act and, specifically, the same noise provision.

Under the act, after being warned by a police officer, it is illegal to make noise that can be heard inside an abortion clinic with the intent to interfere with a medical procedure.

U.S. Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen issued the opinion and order, holding that the noise pro- vision in the act is content based because it restricts speech based on its purpose, and therefore is facially unconstitutional, according to a press release from the Thomas More Law Firm.

The Michigan firm filed a lawsuit in December 2015 on behalf of Pastor Andrew March after a Portland police officer warned March under the act and ordered him to quiet his pro-life speech on the public sidewalk of a Planned Parenthood in Portland or face prosecution. The lawsuit was filed to stop enforcement of the act as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

According to March’s legal counsel, a judge must determine that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction has a likelihood of success on the merits.

The firm’s press release argues that by granting their motion, “Judge Torresen has indicated that Pastor March will ultimately prevail in this claim and that the act is an unconstitutional suppression of free speech when the case goes to summary judgment.”

Torresen concluded that the state had other content neutral means of keeping peace at abortion clinics.

On Nov. 10, 2015, the Maine Attorney General’s Office announced it filed the complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court under the Maine Civil Rights Act against 26-year-old Brian Ingalls of Lisbon for violating the rights of patients at the Planned Parenthood health center — located on the second floor of a building at 443 Congress St. in Portland.

The complaint alleges that during a protest outside the building in October 2015, Ingalls was yelling toward the facility so loudly that his voice interfered with the delivery of health services.

According to the AG’s complaint, Ingalls was told to lower his voice by Portland police, but allegedly resumed yelling “about murdering babies, babies’ blood and Jesus, at a volume that was audible in the examination and counseling rooms and disrupted the safe and effective delivery of health services inside the facility.”

The AG requests that the court enter a permanent injunction enjoining Ingalls from knowingly coming within 50 feet of Planned Parenthood facilities and from “intentionally engaging in any conduct with the intent to jeopardize the health of persons receiving health services at a Planned Parenthood facility or to interfere with the safe and effective delivery of health service at a Planned Parenthood facility.”

The Maine Civil Rights Act protects the right of any person to receive any sort of medical services without disruptions caused by loud noises, according to Maine Attorney General Janet Mills.

Kate Oliveri of the Thomas More Law Firm is representing March and Ingalls. Their cases are different sides of the same coin, she said Tuesday. The state is suing Ingalls over the noise provision in the Maine Human Rights Act and March is suing the state over the same provision.

Most recently in the AG’s lawsuit against Ingalls, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and is waiting for a decision, according to Oliveri. She couldn’t say how Torresen’s opinion will impact the state’s case against Ingalls, but said based purely on legal issues, “it’s incredibly indicative of a final decision.”

Oliveri said it depends on the state, which could choose to drop the lawsuit since the judge will likely hold the statute unconstitutional; and on what the judge decides.

“I do think that this will have an impact on the judge’s decision,” she said. “He’s going to have to decide if he agrees or doesn’t. And the state will have to decide if they will be violating the order if they proceed with their prosecution.”

dmoore@timesrecord.com