American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
698 F.3d 885
6th Cir.2012Background
- SMART restricts bus-advertising content via a written policy prohibiting political ads and other content, administered by CBS Outdoor and SMART.
- The advertising space on SMART buses is treated as a nonpublic forum with the government maintaining control over permissible content.
- AFDI sought to place a fatwa advertisement on SMART buses; CBS referred the ad to SMART, which concluded it violated political-ad and ridicules-a-group restrictions.
- AFDI and individual plaintiffs allege First and Fourteenth Amendment violations and sought equitable relief; the district court granted a preliminary injunction.
- The district court found SMART open to political speech by practice but lacking sufficient guidance, while SMART appeals arguing nonpublic-forum status and reasonable restrictions.
- The court ultimately reverses the district court, holding SMART’s nonpublic-forum restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum status of SMART’s advertising space | AFDI: space is a designated public forum; rejection triggers strict scrutiny. | SMART: space is a nonpublic forum; restrictions apply with reasonableness and neutrality. | Nonpublic forum; restrictions reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. |
| Constitutionality of SMART's content restrictions | Restrictions lack adequate guidelines and suppress political speech improperly. | Policy is objective and not unbridled; political ads are banned to protect revenue and minimize controversy. | Restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. |
| Likelihood of success on the merits for injunction | First Amendment violation; prior apparent discrimination against political ads shows forum open to political speech. | Forum not opened to public discourse; actions consistent with nonpublic forum and revenue goals. | AFDI unlikely to succeed on merits; injunction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (advertising space on buses can be nonpublic forum when government limits content)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 1998) (restriction on controversial or aesthetic-advertising speech raises risk of viewpoint discrimination)
- New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 136 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1998) (designated public forum analysis; political and public-issue ads imply open forum)
- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) (avoid unbridled discretion in decisionmaking; must have objective standards)
- Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (erratic enforcement does not automatically negate intent to not open a forum)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (content-based restrictions in government-created speech spaces must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum-designation and content restrictions depend on government intent and the forum's purpose)
- Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012) (political controversy surrounding Islamic-law issues can render content political)