Coleman v. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority
947 F. Supp. 2d 777
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Plaintiff Blaine Coleman challenges AATA's bus advertising policy and the rejection of his Israel-critical ad.
- The court's initial Opinion found parts of the policy unconstitutional and ordered reconsideration under a revised policy.
- AATA revised the policy by deleting the 'good taste' provision and adding a prohibition on political ads, aligning with SMART's constitutional holding.
- AATA rejected Coleman's ad again under the revised policy, relying on the new 'no political ads' provision and the 'scorn or ridicule' ground.
- The court held that the forum shifted from designated public forum to a nonpublic forum, making the 'no political ads' restriction constitutionally sound and the prior challenges moot.
- The court concluded there is no ongoing constitutional violation or threat of harm and denied further preliminary relief; standing to challenge the 'scorn or ridicule' provision was not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of relief request | No ongoing violation; policy change is post-hoc rationalization. | Forum changed to nonpublic; no ongoing violation; reconsideration under new policy suffices. | Moot; no ongoing violation. |
| Effect of forum change on rights | Policy change masks hostility to message; retroactive justification. | Government may change forum character; new, constitutional policy governs. | Forum change valid; new policy rescinds facial challenges. |
| Standing to challenge scorn or ridicule provision | Should be able to challenge the independent provision as applied. | Plaintiff lacks injury from the scorn or ridicule provision; independent challenge failed. | Lacked standing; cannot challenge the provision. |
| Post-hoc rationalization concern | AATA's policy change shows post-hoc rationalization to suppress unpopular speech. | Change was pursuant to a model already approved by the Sixth Circuit and not a post-hoc justification. | Not established; not a basis to grant relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. SMART, 698 F.3d 885 (6th Cir.2012) (no political ads provision constitutional in transit advertising forum)
- Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 675 F.3d 974 (6th Cir.2012) (mootness when new statutory scheme enacted mid-litigation)
- Miller v. City of Cincinnati, 622 F.3d 524 (6th Cir.2010) (forum analysis in transit advertising; distinctions between forum types)
- City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) (post-hoc rationalization concerns and licensing standards)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (government may change the nature of a nontraditional forum)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (government may change the nature of a forum)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1099 v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738 (6th Cir.2004) (forum analysis and standards in designated/public forums)
- Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) (standing and injury-in-fact in First Amendment challenges)
- Joseph H. Munson Co. v. City of Portland, 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (prudential standing limitations in First Amendment challenges)
- Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d 732 (6th Cir.2012) (standing requirements in First Amendment contexts)