In a case that we reported on over a year ago, last fall, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Tennessee judge’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Nashville metropolitan government, finding instead that the relocation of protesters at Nashville’s Pride
In October, a federal district court in Louisiana denied the City of New Orleans’s motion to dismiss a claim filed by an individual challenging the city’s permit requirement for murals.
In late 2017, Neal Morris, an owner of residential and commercial
In a case that has been percolating for more than five years and which we reported on last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court
Two men were arrested for disorderly conduct in an anti-abortion demonstration in Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition to bringing a Fourth Amendment claim against the Little Rock Police Department, the men challenged the Arkansas disorderly conduct statute and the city’s permit requirement as violations of their free speech rights under the First Amendment. A federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on appeal earlier this month.
Arkansas’s criminal code contains several actions that constitute disorderly conduct, including: fighting; in violent, threatening, or tumultuous behavior; unreasonable or excessive noise; the use of “abusive or obscene language, or mak[ing] an obscene gesture, in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response; disruption or disturbance of meetings or gatherings; obstructing traffic; and other actions. The plaintiffs argued that the statute was vague and overbroad. The appeals court found that the statute was not vague, primarily because it contained a mens rea requirement—that is, that the violator have a particular intent to engage in disorderly conduct. The court used similar logic in upholding the statute against the plaintiffs’ overbreadth claim, finding that the statute was content neutral and that its objective mens rea requirement precluded an overbreadth challenge.
Continue Reading Arkansas Abortion Protesters Lose Appeal in Vagueness, Overbreadth, and Prior Restraint Case
Last month, a federal district court in Tennessee denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by a man who wished to picket a Planned Parenthood location in a business park in Memphis. The court determined that the private street on which the plaintiff, John Brindley, intended to picket was not a public roadway and therefore was not a traditional public forum requiring content neutral speech regulations.
Planned Parenthood’s offices are located on Virginia Run Cove, a two-lane street that serves multiple businesses located within the park. The park is zoned as a planned unit development, and the street serves the businesses located within the park. Brindley sought to protest Planned Parenthood on Virginia Run Cove, but was asked to move by a police officer on the premise that Virginia Run Cove is a private street. Brindley subsequently moved to a nearby public street, but was dissatisfied that his protest location was nearly 300 feet from his target audience, Planned Parenthood. Brindley subsequently filed his complaint in federal district court.
In conducting a forum analysis to determine whether Virginia Run Cove was a public forum for First Amendment purposes, the court noted that some public fora are privately-owned. These areas include public sidewalks that run across private property, sidewalks on private university campuses, and even the streets of corporate-owned communities. However, the court observed, private areas are not converted into public fora where the owner of the property allows a more limited use of the property.
Continue Reading In Tennessee Planned Parenthood Case, Court Finds Private Street is Not a Public Forum
Over the past couple of years, we’ve reported on a case involving pamphleteering activities on the plaza that lies outside of the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse here in our home city of Denver, Colorado. Things have gotten interesting again, as the Tenth Circuit last month reversed a decision of the federal district court finding the City and County of Denver in contempt following its decision to arrest an individual for distributing literature on the plaza.
We’ll first bring our readers back up to speed. This case involved the question of whether a group could lawfully distribute literature about jury nullification on the plaza. The Second Judicial District, a state court, prohibited demonstrations and literature distribution on the plaza. The plaza area is owned by Denver, and the state court is a tenant on the property. Denver Police arrested a member of the pamphleteering group, which resulted in a First Amendment claim against the city and the state court. Denver stipulated that the plaza was a public forum, and further stipulated that it would not enforce the prohibitions on literature distribution, but the Second Judicial District disagreed with Denver’s position. The federal court then entered a preliminary injunction against the Second Judicial District, and dismissed Denver from the case. A prior Tenth Circuit order upheld the preliminary injunction. On a motion for permanent injunction, the court agreed with the Second Judicial District and found that the plaza was not a traditional public forum.
Continue Reading In Another Chapter of Denver Courthouse Plaza Battle, Tenth Circuit Reverses Contempt Order
In mid-July, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s entry of summary judgment for the City of Shaker Heights, Ohio and one of its police officer co-defendants in a sign case arising out of animosity between two neighbors in the wealthy Cleveland-area suburb.
Upon the belief that her neighbors, Richard and Elizabeth Minkowetz, were committing acts of vandalism against her property, Gladys Wilson began posting signs in her windows facing the Minkowetzes’ property. Examples of the signs’ messages include “nasty lil twit,” “Peeping Tom Exposed,” “Zoomed Zapped and Snapped,” and “Thur. 10:50.” After the Minkowetzes complained to the city about the signs, the city dispatched one of its police officers to Wilson’s home, and she was later charged with disorderly conduct. In response, Wilson filed claims against the city, one of its police officers, and its prosecutor under Section 1983 alleging, among other things, a First Amendment retaliation claim. She also alleged malicious prosecution and equal protection claims.
Continue Reading In a “Nasty” Neighborhood Sign Dispute, Shaker Heights, Ohio Prevails
Earlier this month, in a case challenging the denial of permits to erect a homeless “tent city” in front of a former elementary school in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago, a federal magistrate judge dismissed the organizers’ First Amendment claim. While one count of the plaintiffs’ complaint will move forward, the order dismisses all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims.
Uptown Tent City Organizers and its leader, Andy Thayer, sought a permit from the City of Chicago to establish a tent city in the former elementary school site. In 2016, several homeless people had resided at the site, but the city fenced it off and the homeless people moved to various locations under viaducts along the city’s famed Lake Shore Drive. The plaintiff filed claims in state court challenging the city’s denial of the permit, and the city removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs lost a motion for preliminary injunction, and subsequently amended their complaint to add First Amendment free speech and assembly, Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, Fourth Amendment illegal seizure, Fifth Amendment taking, and various state law claims.
Continue Reading Homeless “Tent City” Is Not Expressive Conduct Protected by the First Amendment, Says Federal Court
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 Animal Rights Activists Win Another Round in Circus Case