A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals initially overturned the verdict, holding that the activities were protected under the First Amendment because they did not directly threaten harm to the plaintiffs, and because the statements were not communicated privately to the plaintiffs.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel initially reversed the decision, arguing that the actions were shielded by the First Amendment as they did not pose immediate harm to the plaintiffs and the communications were not private.