While the Rocky Mountain Sign Blog is geared toward issues that involve free speech and land use law, we geek out about any Supreme Court case that addresses First Amendment issues, even those outside of our weird little land use world. Yesterday, our appetite
We previously reported on this case, wherein a group of animal rights activists sought to protest the Barnum and Bailey Circus outside of Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. In 2016, the district court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction against the convention center’s protest policy, which required protesters to gather in two areas of approximately 500 to 700 square feet in the arena’s parking lot. The facts of the case are reported in our earlier blog post.
Continue Reading
In a case that we reported on in 2016, a federal district court in New York has granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The case involves the regulation of protest speech—specifically, a protester’s activities during an LGBTQ rights parade—on public sidewalks.
A brief recap of the facts is merited. James Deferio is a Christian evangelist who has protested each year at the Central New York Pride Parade and Festival, held in Syracuse. Each year, the city issued a permit to the organizers of the parade. That permit indicated that no speakers would be allowed on sidewalks adjacent to the parade. At the 2014 event, Syracuse police officers threatened Deferio with arrest in reliance on the permit, and he relocated from the site. In 2015, the city again approved a permit for the parade, giving the parade exclusive control over First Amendment activities and limiting the use of sound amplification devices near the parade route. The 2015 permit also allowed for a zone where protest activities could occur. Deferio again attended the parade to protest. After minor verbal altercations ensued, a Syracuse police officer told Deferio that he could be arrested for his activities, and he relocated to the zone designated for protest activity.
Continue Reading
Last week, the Tenth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction preventing Denver International Airport from enforcing much of its public protest policy. We reported on that injunction after it issued and now return to discuss its reversal on appeal. In short, the unanimous appellate panel concluded that the airport could reasonably require a seven-day permitting period for protests, even if that requirement quashed most spontaneous demonstrations.
A bit of background, though, before we get any further: after the Trump administration unveiled its so-called “Muslim Ban” (more formally, but less memorably, titled Executive Order 13769) suspending nationals from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, spontaneous protests broke out in airports nationwide. Plaintiffs in this case joined in those protests at DIA, where
Continue Reading
A local nuclear power activist, who expresses concern about the possibility of a nuclear meltdown at a Massachusetts nuclear power, watched his First Amendment claims against the Town of Rowley “melt down” late month. A federal district court in Massachusetts entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the town, finding it did not engage in viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, or selective enforcement.
Stephen Comley, a town resident, posted signs in public right-of-ways throughout the town pertaining to his concerns about safety at the Seabrook Power Plant. In 2015, Comley appeared before the town’s governing body to demand that the town take action against the power plant. Following Comley’s appearance before the town board, he noticed that his signs began disappearing from the public right-of-ways, which reportedly hosted several other signs relating to elections and other subjects. He then brought First Amendment claims for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, and selective enforcement.
Continue Reading
Last week, a federal district court granted summary judgment to the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in a long-running dispute over a buffer zone law applicable to protest activities outside of reproductive health facilities such as Planned Parenthood. The court held that the city’s 15-foot buffer zone law was content neutral and narrowly tailored to a substantial governmental interest, and thus valid under the First Amendment.
Pittsburgh enacted its buffer zone law in 2005. The initial buffer zone law initially imposed a 15-foot buffer zone around the entrance to a hospital or health care facility in which no person was permitted to congregate, patrol, picket, or demonstrate. The buffer zone excepted public safety officers, emergency workers, employees or agents of the facility, and patients. The law also imposed an eight-foot “personal” buffer zone around individuals. In the eight-foot buffer zone, no person could approach an individual to provide a leaflet or to protest, where the individual was within 100 feet of a hospital or health care facility entrance. The eight-foot personal buffer zone was struck down in the case of Brown v. City of Pittsburgh in 2009. The 15-foot buffer zone remained in effect, but was challenged again in 2014 following the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley, in which the Court struck down a Massachusetts law imposing a 35-foot buffer zone around health care clinics. The plaintiffs in the case are religiously-motivated protesters who engage in protest activities around a Planned Parenthood facility in Pittsburgh. In 2016, as we reported, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case.
Continue Reading
Webcast— Special Topics in Planning and the First Amendment: Signs, Adult Businesses, Religious Land Uses, and More
December 14, 2017
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EDT
CM | 1.50 | Law
CLE 1.50 through Illinois State Bar
The Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association is pleased to host the upcoming webcast Special
Late last month, a federal district court in Tennessee granted summary judgment to the Nashville metropolitan government in a case involving the rights of protesters at the 2015 Nashville Pride Festival, which is a celebration of LGBTQ rights and culture.
Nashville Pride Festival is held in the City’s Public Square Park. In order to hold the festival in the park, Nashville required the organization Nashville Pride to obtain a permit. The event was ticketed, such that only those with tickets could enter into the park. The plaintiffs in the case, John McGlone and Jeremy Peters, believe that homosexuality is a sin. They attended the festival in protest, but stayed outside the ticketed area. A festival employee asked them to leave the area outside of the gate, as it was subject to Nashville Pride’s permit. Eventually, the protesters were removed to a location on the other side of the street from the park. This location was unsatisfactory to the plaintiffs, because they believed that their message would reach less people.
Continue Reading
Late last week, in a case that involved made-for-TV shenanigans by a local police officer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a town’s total ban on signs, flags, and banners within 100 feet of an interstate highway could survive with respect to overhead signs, but remanded the case for additional proceedings with respect to other parts of the ban.
Campbell, Wisconsin bans all signs, flags, and banners along interstate highways. The town enacted its regulation after members of the community hung political protest banners containing messages commonly identified with the Tea Party on a pedestrian overpass over Interstate 90.
Following the enactment of the regulation, the local police began issuing citations to individuals displaying signs along the highway. Some of the individual sign-posters took videos of the police issuing citations—including in response to the protesters’ display of American flags and other patriotic signs along the interstate highway. Concerned about the videos, in an apparent attempt at vigilante justice, the local police chief posted the name and email address of one of the Tea Party sign-posters on same-sex dating and pornographic websites. The police chief also took to local newspapers to accuse the man of failing to pay his taxes.
Continue Reading
We are pleased to announce the publication of a new book, Local Government, Land Use, and the First Amendment: Protecting Free Speech and Expression. The book is published by ABA Publishing, and was edited by the editor of Rocky Mountain Sign Law, Brian Connolly. Twelve authors contributed to the book, which contains chapters