Ban of Bus Ads on Controversial Issues Violates Constitution

In WallBuilder Presentations v. Clarke, (D DC, May 21, 2024), a D.C. federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a Guideline of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority which bars bus ads that are "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions...." Plaintiffs submitted two ads that promoted the idea that the nation's founders were Christians. The court said in part:

... [N]othing in Guideline 9’s text answers basic questions about its reach, and the “indeterminate scope” of Guideline 9 is not “clarif[ied]” or “saved” by any official guidance..... Enforcement of Guideline 9 is thus left to individual reviewers to determine, on a....case-by-case basis, what constitutes an “[a]dvertisement intended to influence” and what constitutes “an issue on which there are varying opinions.”  Such determinations “require[] a government decision-maker to maintain a mental index” of all the issues on which varying opinions exist—which, in turn, requires the decisionmaker to know not only the issues on which opinions differ, but also the precise degree to which opinions differ—an enterprise that the D.C. Circuit has said is “not reasonable.”....   

This Court thus joins the many courts that have rejected similar phrases as constitutionally suspect.... Without objective, workable standards in Guideline 9’s text or accompanying official guidance, reviewers’ “own politics may shape [their] views on what counts” as “an issue on which there are varying opinions,” and the risk of “unfair or inconsistent enforcement,” and even “abuse” is “self-evident.”  ....

However, relying on Circuit Court precedent, the court refused to enjoin enforcement of Guideline 12 that  prohibits advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

11th Circuit: Transit Agency's Policy Barring Religious Ads Violates Free Speech Protections

In Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, (11th Cir., Jan. 10, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a public transit agency's policy on the sale of advertising space on its vehicles and property.  While selling advertising space, the agency prohibited ads that "primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization." Applying this policy, the transit agency rejected an ad from plaintiff promoting a "Chanukah on Ice" event. The court concluded that the policy violates plaintiff's free speech rights, saying in part:

Though the analysis would not change one way or another, we’ll assume, without deciding, that the HART vehicles and property at issue here are nonpublic forums as opposed to limited public forums. Even so, when the government restricts speech in nonpublic forums, it “must avoid the haphazard and arbitrary enforcement of speech restrictions in order for them to be upheld as reasonable.”...

Given the inherent ambiguity of the word “religious,” the uncertainty and potential breadth of the term “primarily promote,” and the lack of any definitions, we agree with the district court that the policy fails to provide any objective or workable standards. The policy therefore fails under [the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v.] Mansky....

Judge Newsom filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I'm not sure that any religious-speech restriction could survive a reasonableness inquiry under Mansky—because I’m not sure that any policymaker could define or identify “religious” speech using “objective, workable standards.”

Judge Grimberg filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

By constructing a policy that is so clearly and completely incapable of reasonable application, HART has successfully evaded a ruling on the viewpoint-versus-subject-matter dispute that is at the heart of this case. And that evaded ruling, in my view, has long been settled by the Supreme Court’s “trilogy” of cases....

Where the same advertisement, with the same content is welcomed when references to religion are removed and replaced with secular ones, I see no way around concluding ... that the public transportation system engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

See prior related posting.