American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 245 F. Supp. 3d 205

Plaintiffs (AFDI, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer) submitted issue-oriented ads to WMATA for display on buses and station dioramas in May 2015.
On May 28, 2015, WMATA's Board adopted a moratorium closing its commercial advertising space to all "issue-oriented" ads (political, religious, advocacy) pending policy review; WMATA then rejected Plaintiffs' ads under that moratorium.
WMATA made the moratorium permanent on November 19, 2015 by adopting Resolution No. 2015-55 with guidelines banning ads that influence public opinion on contested issues, or that support/oppose parties, candidates, religions, or industry positions without direct commercial benefit.
Plaintiffs sued under the First Amendment (and sought nominal damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983), arguing the closure was a prior restraint and targeted their ads; WMATA defended the change as converting a designated forum into a nonpublic forum and as viewpoint-neutral and reasonable.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the Court treated WMATA’s advertising space as a nonpublic forum at the time of rejection and resolved the case on the summary judgment record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Forum classification	WMATA's ad space was a designated public forum when ads were submitted, so strict scrutiny applies	WMATA converted the forum to a nonpublic forum before rejecting the ad; nonpublic forum rules apply	Court: WMATA converted the forum; analyze under nonpublic forum standard
Viewpoint discrimination	The timing and context show the moratorium targeted Plaintiffs' ad and was a pretext to suppress their viewpoint	WMATA acted for neutral reasons (community reputation, employee morale, vandalism, administrative burden); timing alone does not prove pretext	Court: No evidence of impermissible viewpoint discrimination; restriction is viewpoint-neutral
Reasonableness of restriction	Banning issue-oriented ads on buses is unreasonable as buses reach broad public audiences; Plaintiffs' speech was unfairly excluded	Restriction is reasonable to preserve WMATA's intended use, prevent vandalism, reduce burdens, and maintain operations; nonpublic forum need only be reasonable	Court: Restriction is reasonable under nonpublic-forum standards
Vagueness/unbridled discretion	The moratorium/guidelines are hopelessly vague and grant officials unbridled discretion	Guidelines define "issue-oriented" and specify prohibited categories (political, religious, advocacy) and examples	Court: Guidelines are sufficiently definite; not unconstitutionally vague

Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 685 F.3d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (forum analysis and mootness principles)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (forum classification and standards for nonpublic forums)
Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (definitions and treatment of designated and nonpublic forums)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2009) (restrictions in nonpublic forums must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable)
Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1993) (government may not enact regulations that are a ruse for viewpoint discrimination)
Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (timing of policy changes during litigation does not alone show pretext)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1974) (upholding transit advertising restrictions in nonpublic forums)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1969) (standards against unbridled discretion in licensing schemes)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1975) (permit/license standards and First Amendment limits)
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (regulation of commercial vs. noncommercial advertising)

Decision: Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted; Plaintiffs' cross-motion denied.