Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Civil Action No. 2017-2554
| D.D.C. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- The Archdiocese of Washington sought to purchase exterior Metrobus ads for a "Find the Perfect Gift" Advent campaign directing viewers to a website promoting Mass, Advent practices, and charitable giving; WMATA rejected the ads under its Advertising Guidelines, which bar ads that "promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief."
- WMATA amended its ad policy in 2015 after public comment and security/operational concerns, permanently prohibiting political, religious, and other "issue-oriented" ads to reduce community discord, security risks, vandalism, and administrative burdens.
- The Archdiocese filed suit challenging Guideline 12 (facial and as-applied) under the Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, RFRA, Equal Protection, and Due Process, and moved for a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction to require WMATA to run the ads during Advent.
- The parties agreed the exterior of Metrobus is not a traditional or designated public forum; the question was whether WMATA’s ban is viewpoint-discriminatory, or instead a permissible content restriction in a nonpublic/limited forum that is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
- The district court held the ad space is a nonpublic (limited) forum, found Guideline 12 viewpoint neutral and reasonable given WMATA’s safety, anti-vandalism, employee/community opposition, and administrative concerns, and denied the preliminary injunction because the Archdiocese was unlikely to succeed on the merits and failed to show irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metrobus exterior advertising is a public forum | Archdiocese: at least a limited/designated public forum | WMATA: nonpublic/limited forum after 2015 Guidelines | Held: nonpublic/limited forum (WMATA changed practice in 2015) |
| Whether Guideline 12 constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under Free Speech | Archdiocese: commercial holiday ads convey a "pro-commercialization of Christmas" viewpoint; excluding religious Christmas ads suppresses religious viewpoint on same subject | WMATA: commercial ads are purely commercial, Archdiocese’s ad is religious advocacy; Guideline excludes religion as subject matter, not viewpoint | Held: No viewpoint discrimination; Guideline is viewpoint neutral and permissible in a nonpublic forum |
| Whether Guideline 12 violates Free Exercise or RFRA (substantial burden) | Archdiocese: policy burdens evangelization and substantially limits religious exercise | WMATA: policy is neutral, generally applicable, and does not compel or substantially burden religious practice; alternatives exist | Held: Guideline is neutral and generally applicable; Archdiocese failed to show a substantial burden under Free Exercise or RFRA |
| Whether Guideline 12 was applied discriminatorily (Equal Protection / as-applied) | Archdiocese: WMATA accepted Salvation Army, yoga, and other ads, showing inconsistent enforcement favoring other religious actors | WMATA: those ads do not promote or oppose religion; accepted ads are commercial/charitable, not religious advocacy | Held: No discriminatory application shown; ads cited are not similarly situated, so Equal Protection claim unlikely to succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (elements required for preliminary injunction)
- U.S. Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, 453 U.S. 114 (1981) (no First Amendment right of access to government property simply because it is government-owned)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (public forum doctrine and standards for nonpublic forums)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (traditional, designated, and nonpublic forum distinctions)
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (bus advertising is not a public forum; transit authorities may limit ad content)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination impermissible where subject matter is otherwise allowed)
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) (denying religious speech on otherwise permitted subject may be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination)
- Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch. Dist., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) (views protected when property is opened to certain subject matter; exclusion of religious perspective can be viewpoint discrimination)
- Lehman and related transit-ad authority cases were applied to uphold WMATA's nonpublic forum determination and the reasonableness of content restrictions on buses.