Bible Believers v. Wayne County
765 F.3d 578
6th Cir.2014Background
- Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, 2012; Bible Believers proselytized with signs, banners, megaphones; crowd reacted with debris and aggression.
- Wayne County Sheriff’s Office planned for festival security; post-operation report cited multiple disorderly conduct actions by others and safety concerns.
- Bible Believers warned they could be cited for disorderly conduct if they did not leave; officers cited concerns about public safety and insufficient staffing to protect speakers.
- Disturbance escalated as debris and rocks were thrown; Bible Believers escorted from the festival by deputies.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights, equal protection, and municipal liability.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on constitutional claims; judge did not reach qualified immunity or Monell issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Plan was content neutral and violated no speech rights | Bible Believers contend speech protected; plan neutral but enforcement/interaction violated First Amendment. | Plan neutral; actions were reasonable time/place/manner restrictions to keep peace. | Plan content neutral; no First Amendment violation on plan alone. |
| Whether officials’ threat to cite for disorderly conduct amounted to a heckler’s veto | Threat to arrest speaker due to crowd reaction suppresses protected speech. | Threats were necessary to prevent imminent violence and protect public safety. | Threats did not amount to a forbidden heckler’s veto; actions reasonable given danger. |
| Whether Free Exercise rights were violated by suppression of religious conduct | Chavez’s religious proselytizing protected; suppression infringed free exercise. | Government actions neutral and aimed at safety, not targeting religious conduct. | Free exercise claim fails; safety-focused regulation applied equally. |
| Whether the Equal Protection Clause was violated by disparate treatment | Hostile crowd members treated differently from Bible Believers; selective enforcement. | Crowd and Bible Believers treated similarly in enforcement; no disparate treatment. | No disparate treatment shown; equal protection claim fails. |
| Whether Wayne County can be held liable under Monell | County policy or custom caused rights violations. | No constitutional rights deprivation found; Monell not reached. | Monell liability not addressed due to lack of deprivation finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1940) (speech protection extends to beliefs and conduct; cannot unduly suppress)
- Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1949) (overbreadth of breach-of-peace statute violates First Amendment)
- Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1951) (police may prevent breach of peace when imminent danger exists)
- Glasson v. City of Louisville, 518 F.2d 899 (6th Cir. 1975) (police may remove speaker to preserve peace; protects speaker rights in hard cases)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (time/place/manner restrictions must be content neutral and narrowly tailored)
- Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1951) (heckler’s veto; government cannot silence based on hostile reactions)
- Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1951) (Frankfurter concurrence cited on protection against heckler’s veto)
- Saieg v. City of Dearborn, 641 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2011) (precedent on festival speech in Dearborn)
- James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002) (incitement standard for speech)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1969) (incitement test requires intent and likelihood of imminent lawless action)
- Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (U.S. 2011) (protects minor content considerations in modern context)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (U.S. 1940) (cantwell cantwell incitement/fighting words framework referenced)
- Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1963) (protects peaceful demonstration; state may regulate to preserve order)
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1965) (police response to protests and preservation of order in public forums)
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1984) (content-neutral regulation of speech in public forums)
- United States v. Jeffries, 692 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2012) (fighting words and incitement framework considered)
- James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002) (incitement standard requiring intent and likelihood of imminent lawless action)