931 F.3d 471
6th Cir.2019Background
- In Aug. 2015 three members of The Fairness Campaign (Hartman, DeVries, Wallace) planned to protest the Kentucky Farm Bureau–sponsored Ham Breakfast at the Kentucky State Fair; they were told to protest in a designated “protest zone” in the fairgrounds parking lot (≈50 feet from the entrance). The Fairness Campaign had issued a press release but did not seek the 72‑hour permit required by fairgrounds regulation.
- Trooper Jeremy Thompson coordinated placement of the protest zone with fairgrounds staff and told the group they could protest there (signs, megaphones allowed) but not inside the Breakfast; the group nevertheless entered the ticketed Breakfast and sat together in bright shirts.
- At the start of the program the group stood up in unison and silently; officers arrested Hartman (failure to disperse and disorderly conduct), then DeVries and Wallace (failure to disperse). Charges were later dismissed by prosecutors.
- Plaintiffs sued troopers Thompson, Drane, and Hill under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourth Amendment claims) and state torts; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on merits and on qualified immunity; Sixth Circuit affirmed.
- Central legal questions: (1) whether directing plaintiffs to the protest zone violated the First Amendment (forum, viewpoint neutrality, reasonableness), and (2) whether officers had probable cause to arrest inside the private, ticketed event (bearing on false arrest, retaliatory arrest, malicious prosecution, battery).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of moving plaintiffs to a protest zone (free‑speech, limited public forum) | Thompson’s placement of protesters outside restricted their protected speech and targeted them based on viewpoint | Protest zone was inside the ticketed fairgrounds (a limited public forum); placement was viewpoint‑neutral and reasonable to serve crowd/control and safety interests | Rejected plaintiffs’ claim: protest zone was a limited public forum; Thompson not liable for creating it (authority rested with fairgrounds); even if he acted, zone was viewpoint neutral and reasonable — summary judgment for defendants |
| 2. Viewpoint neutrality / reasonableness of requiring preregistration to protest | Distinguishing self‑identified protestors from others is viewpoint‑discriminatory or not reasonably related to forum purpose | Requirement of notice and assignment of fixed locations is a reasonable, viewpoint‑neutral time/place restriction under fairgrounds regulation | Court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination and that accommodation (50 ft zone, accessible facilities, ability to use signs/megaphones) was reasonable — defendants prevail |
| 3. Probable cause for arrests inside the Breakfast (failure to disperse / disrupting a meeting) | Standing silently in back did not physically obstruct or create disorder; officers lacked probable cause to arrest (and Hill may not have known relevant facts) | Officers knew about prior protests and Hartman’s statement that they might “ramp up” activities; synchronized standing with protest shirts supported probable cause under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 525.150 (disrupting a meeting) | Court held probable cause existed (considering totality and officers’ knowledge), so false arrest, malicious‑prosecution, and retaliatory‑arrest claims fail |
| 4. First Amendment retaliatory arrest & qualified immunity | Arrests were motivated at least in part by plaintiffs’ dissenting viewpoint; qualified immunity shouldn’t shield officers | Probable cause defeats retaliatory‑arrest claims; officers are entitled to qualified immunity where probable cause exists | Because probable cause existed, retaliation claim fails; defendants entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity on remaining federal and state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (framework for forum analysis and applicable standards)
- Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981) (state fair as limited public forum; time/place restrictions permissible for crowd control)
- Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) (limitations in limited public forum must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination)
- Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) (viewpoint exclusion in limited forum unconstitutional)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable cause may be based on any offense supported by facts known to officer)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory‑prosecution claim requires lack of probable cause; applied to related claims)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (probable cause generally defeats retaliatory‑arrest claims; narrow exception for objective disparate‑treatment evidence)
- Brumley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 909 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment standard; view facts in favor of non‑moving party)
- Miller v. City of Cincinnati, 622 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2010) (limited public forum reasonableness analysis)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for § 1983 malicious prosecution claim)
- Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007) (probable‑cause standard and officer’s knowledge at time of arrest)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause requires facts sufficient to warrant belief a crime was committed)