In Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky, (WD KY, Dec. 6, 2024), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to action by local law enforcement against a street preacher, Jacob Blankenship, who refused to leave a restricted area around Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby Day. The Court said in part:
... [I]f the restriction of Blankenship’s speech was content-neutral, it makes no difference whether Blankenship was arrested in a traditional or limited public forum....
[B]ecause the restrictions of access to the permitted and ticketed areas served purposes unrelated to the content of speech, those restrictions were content-neutral. The purpose of establishing the permitted area—facilitating ingress and egress for Churchill Downs—can be justified without reference to the content of any speech.... Accordingly, Blankenship’s free speech claim calls for intermediate scrutiny....
...Those restrictions survive intermediate scrutiny. The ticketed area was narrowly tailored to serve Metro’s significant interests in traffic control and public safety. It also left open ample alternative channels for Blankenship to share his message with essentially the same audience.....
The purpose of Metro’s permitting scheme is not to infringe upon or restrict religious practices.... The ticketed area restricted Blankenship’s preaching no differently than it restricted non-religious conduct....
... Because the ticketed area’s restrictions only incidentally effected Blankenship’s preaching, on his free exercise claim, Metro and Young are entitled to judgment as matter of law....
Because Blankenship has not tethered his due process void-for-vagueness claim to any liberty or property interest, it fails as a matter of law.
