Public Forum

Subscribe to Public Forum via RSS
Matt Smerge of Left Field Media hawking newspapers at a Cubs game. Source: Chicago Reader.

On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Chicago’s ban on the peddling of merchandise on sidewalks adjacent to Wrigley Field was a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation that survived intermediate scrutiny.  The ordinance was challenged by Left Field Media, which publishes a magazine called Chicago Baseball and sells copies outside of Wrigley Field before Chicago Cubs home games.  Chicago’s “Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance” prohibits peddling merchandise on any sidewalk adjacent to Wrigley Field, for the purpose of allowing safe pedestrian passage.  Because the Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance prohibited the sale of all merchandise—“[t]he ordinance applies as much to sales of bobblehead dolls and baseball jerseys as it does to the sale of printed matter”—the appeals court found that the ordinance was content neutral in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert.  The appeals court’s decision upholds the prior denial by a federal district judge of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading Appeals Court: Wrigley Field Peddling Ordinance Not a First Amendment Violation

Late last month, a federal court found that a group of animal rights activists was entitled to a preliminary injunction relating to the group’s protest activities outside of Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Protesters outside of the Barnum and Bailey Circus in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Source: ACLU of Pennsylvania.

The arena in question is owned by a public convention center authority but is operated by a private management company, SMG.  In 2008, SMG promulgated a protest policy that required protestors to remain located in a parking area outside of the arena.  The protest policy limited protestors’ ability to approach attendees at public events and to distribute literature.  In March 2016, SMG revised the protest policy to allow two designated protest areas of approximately 500 to 700 square feet, and located closer to the entrance gates of the arena.  The plaintiffs, including Silvie Pomicter and Last Chance for Animals sought to protest outside of the arena during the Barnum and Bailey Circus, which took place at the arena between April 28 and May 1.
Continue Reading Preliminary Injunction Granted to Animal Rights Activists in Pennsylvania Convention Center Case

In an opinion issued last month, a federal district court in Texas denied an event promoter’s request for a preliminary injunction to compel the City of Dallas to contract with the promoter for use of the Dallas Convention Center in connection with a three-day adult entertainment expo called “Exxxotica.”

The promoter contracted with the City to hold Exxxotica at the Convention Center in 2015.  Prior to that event, the promoter had promised the City that no one under eighteen would be admitted to the event, sexual activities would be prohibited and no obscenity or public lewdness would be permitted.  However, despite the promoter’s promises, the City had evidence, including video footage, of likely underage attendees and lewd conduct at the event.
Continue Reading Court Denies Adult Expo’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; City’s Convention Center is a Limited Public Forum

In the continuing saga of the plaza of the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse here in Denver, last Friday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  Specifically, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s treatment of the courthouse plaza as a traditional public forum—the Second Judicial District had earlier waived its argument that the plaza was anything but a traditional public forum—and that the district court did not err in finding that the content neutral regulation of speech in the plaza was insufficiently narrowly tailored.
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Upholds Grant of Preliminary Injunction in Denver Courthouse Case

Last week, in a case we previously covered here, a federal district court in Colorado considered whether plaintiffs have standing to seek permanent injunctive relief when the defendant has stipulated that it has no intention of enforcing a restriction on expressive conduct.

In Verlo v. City and County of Denver, plaintiffs desired to distribute leaflets regarding jury nullification in the plaza outside of Denver’s Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse.  However, the Colorado Second Judicial District, which operates in the courthouse, issued an order essentially prohibiting all expressive activities in the courthouse plaza.  The City and County of Denver, the entity responsible for enforcing the order, stipulated that it would not do so.  Furthermore, the city stipulated that it would not interfere with plaintiffs’ peaceful distribution of leaflets in the plaza.  Notwithstanding the stipulation, plaintiffs sued the city and the Colorado Second Judicial District, claiming that the order was an unconstitutional restriction on their First Amendment rights.  In an earlier decision, the federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the order.
Continue Reading Denver Courthouse Case Continued: Plaintiffs Lack Standing

The Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse plaza should be open to expressive activity, at least according to the federal district court in Colorado. Source: Glass Magazine.

In a case close to home (for us, at least), a group of citizen pamphleteers sued the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Second Judicial District court, claiming that prohibitions on expressive activity in the plaza outside of Denver’s Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse violated the First Amendment.
Continue Reading Federal Court Finds Plaintiffs Likely to Prevail in Denver Courthouse Free Speech Case

A women’s health counseling service was denied in its efforts to advertise on buses operated by the Fort Wayne, Indiana public bus system.  The bus system’s advertising policy prohibited noncommercial advertising of any nature but allows the display of public service announcements.  The federal district court found that the bus advertising space constituted a nonpublic …