Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
897 F.3d 314
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- WMATA (an interstate compact transit authority) changed its advertising policy in 2015 to close bus-exterior ad space to "issue-oriented" ads (including political, religious, and advocacy) after recurring complaints, security concerns, vandalism, and administrative burdens.
- Guideline 12 bars "Advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief." WMATA defended the rule as subject-matter exclusion intended to preserve viewpoint neutrality and operational safety.
- The Archdiocese of Washington submitted a religious campaign ad (“Find the Perfect Gift”) for bus exteriors; WMATA refused under Guideline 12 because the ad was religious/evangelical in nature.
- The Archdiocese sued in district court under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, RFRA, and the Fifth Amendment; the district court denied a TRO/preliminary injunction, finding the policy lawful for a non-public forum.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial of a mandatory preliminary injunction, holding WMATA’s advertising space is a non-public forum, Guideline 12 is a viewpoint-neutral subject-matter restriction, and the Archdiocese had not shown likelihood of success on First Amendment or RFRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of forum | Archdiocese: ad space is a public or designated forum (or at least, rule discriminates) | WMATA: ad space is a non-public forum; it may limit subjects | Held: ad space is a non-public forum (Archdiocese conceded below and court finds conversion valid) | |
| Viewpoint vs. subject-matter discrimination | Archdiocese: Guideline 12 suppresses religious viewpoint on otherwise permitted subjects (e.g., Christmas, charity) | WMATA: Guideline 12 bans religion as a subject, not particular viewpoints; it's neutral | Held: Guideline 12 is a subject-matter ban (viewpoint-neutral) and thus permissible in a non-public forum | |
| Reasonableness of the restriction | Archdiocese: excluding religion is unreasonable and arbitrary; WMATA accepts some religious-affiliated ads | Archdiocese: selective enforcement shows discrimination | WMATA: rule adopted after documented security, vandalism, complaint, and admin burdens; enforcement targets religious content not religious speakers | Held: restriction is reasonable given WMATA's safety/operational interests and consistent enforcement |
| Free Exercise / RFRA applicability | Archdiocese: prohibition burdens religious exercise and RFRA protects advertising-based evangelism | WMATA: rule is neutral and generally applicable; RFRA likely inapplicable to WMATA (compact of states) | Held: Archdiocese unlikely to succeed on Free Exercise or RFRA; RFRA applicability to WMATA is doubtful and no substantial burden shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (transit advertising may be treated as a non-public forum)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (forum doctrine: non-public forum restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (three forum categories and standards for each)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (viewpoint discrimination invalid where religion is excluded as a viewpoint within an otherwise open subject)
- Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (exclusion of religious viewpoint from otherwise permitted subject is viewpoint discrimination)
- Good News Club v. Milford Cent. School, 533 U.S. 98 (same principle applied to after‑hours school use)
- Minn. Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 138 S. Ct. 1876 (reasonableness/vagueness standard in non-public forum and limits of categorical bans)