394 F.Supp.3d 1226
S.D. Cal.2019Background
- Crossroads of the West (Crossroads) operates recurring gun shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, a state-owned venue managed by the 22nd District Agricultural Association (the District).
- The District adopted a one-year moratorium (for 2019) on gun shows to study and revise gun-show policy, after an ad hoc committee recommended pausing contracts pending development of safety/operational rules.
- Plaintiffs (Crossroads, trade groups, vendors, and individuals) sued claiming the Moratorium unlawfully restricts First Amendment speech (free speech, assembly/association) and violates equal protection; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiffs sought summary judgment; the court converted briefing in part, set discovery, denied some relief, and issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Moratorium.
- The court found the Moratorium is a facially content-based (and practically viewpoint-discriminatory) restriction on speech because it singles out ‘‘gun shows’’ and thus is subject to strict scrutiny; it denied dismissal as to the District but dismissed claims against certain individual defendants on qualified/sovereign immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Moratorium regulates protected speech | Gun shows host protected noncommercial and commercial speech; Moratorium bans speech on gun-related topics | Moratorium regulates conduct and is content-neutral (or at most subject to lower scrutiny); it serves public safety | Moratorium is content-based on its face (and practically viewpoint-discriminatory); strict scrutiny applies |
| Whether the District can justify the Moratorium under strict scrutiny | Plaintiffs: District lacks evidence of a compelling interest and the ban is not narrowly tailored | District: Moratorium protects public safety and allows time to craft policies; needs discovery to justify the ban | District bears burden; court found no concrete evidence of compelling interest and the ban is not narrowly tailored; plaintiffs likely to succeed on merits |
| Qualified immunity for board members (Shewmaker, Valdez) | Plaintiffs: board members violated clearly established First/14th Amendment rights by proposing/voting for the ban | Defendants: officials entitled to qualified immunity | Court: even assuming a violation, rights were not clearly established for this specific action; qualified immunity granted |
| Sovereign immunity for state official (Ross) | Plaintiffs sued Ross in official capacity seeking injunctive relief | Ross: Eleventh Amendment bars suit; Ex parte Young exception inapplicable because she lacks enforcement connection | Court: Ross entitled to sovereign immunity; Ex parte Young inapplicable as she had only supervisory/delegatory role |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (U.S. 2015) (facially content-based regulations of speech trigger strict scrutiny)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992) (viewpoint discrimination is a severe First Amendment violation)
- Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1972) (government may not selectively exclude speech from a forum based on content)
- Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc. v. U.S., 529 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2000) (content-based speech restrictions are presumptively invalid and government bears burden)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (U.S. 2014) (narrow tailoring requires consideration of less speech-restrictive alternatives)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (permits injunctive suits against state officers who have enforcement connection to unconstitutional acts)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)