Defending Animal Rights Today and Tomorrow v. Washington Sports and Entertainment, Lp
821 F. Supp. 2d 97
D.D.C.2011Background
- DARTT protesters leafleted and used signs, megaphones, and a building projection outside the Verizon Center during Ringling Bros. circus shows in DC in March 2011.
- Verizon Center security ordered protesters to move from under the overhang onto the public sidewalk due to perceived private-property concerns and safety/traffic considerations.
- Defendants Washington Sports and Entertainment and the District of Columbia moved to dismiss or for summary judgment after the event concluded and the related preliminary injunction was denied.
- Court reviewed surveillance video showing protesters remained within the sidewalk area and continued to distribute leaflets, speak, and display images after relocating approximately 20 feet from the doors.
- Plaintiff sought to challenge the public‑forum restrictions on leafleting as unconstitutional; the court assumed standing for purposes of the motion and proceeded to merits.
- Court granted defendants’ motions and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding no First Amendment violation given the circumstances and that alternate channels for communication remained available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has standing to sue. | DARTT has standing due to ongoing and planned future protests. | Standing premised on hypothetical future injury; past incidents not enough. | Assumed standing for purposes of the motion; merits proceeded. |
| Whether the sidewalk around Verizon Center is a public forum for First Amendment purposes. | Area under the canopy is public space where leafleting is protected. | Some portion argued private property; restriction allowed under private property status. | The entire canopy area was treated as a public forum for analysis. |
| Whether directing protesters to move away from the entrance was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction. | Restriction burdened more speech than necessary. | Restriction served pedestrian safety while allowing ongoing protest via other means. | Restriction was constitutional under intermediate scrutiny; narrowly tailored and left open alternative channels. |
| Whether the restriction was narrowly tailored and whether ample alternative channels existed. | Distance imposed prevented effective reach to audience. | Proximity still allowed audience reach; less restrictive means acceptable. | Narrowly tailored; adequate alternative channels (megaphone, signs, building projection) remained. |
| Whether the court should apply a less rigorous standard (Madsen) or standard public-forum analysis. | Madsen test should apply as an injunction-like directive. | Public-forum, standard intermediate scrutiny applies. | Public-forum analysis applied; even under Madsen, no constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund., Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (content-neutral restrictions may suffice if narrowly tailored in a public forum)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (intermediate scrutiny for time, place, and manner restrictions; ample alternatives)
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1919) (early framework for restricting speech for substantial government interests)
- Grace v. United States, 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1983) (illustrates government interest in preventing congestion and preserving safety)
- Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1984) (government can regulate speech to protect public safety and prevent harm)
- U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990) (public sidewalks as forums; boundaries between public and private property)
- Hed v. Krishna Consciousness (ISM), 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (government interest in maintaining order and flow of pedestrian traffic)
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1992) (public forums on sidewalks; protected speech)
- Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1994) (discussion of strict injunction-like standards for protest zones)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (government may impose regulations short of total bans to serve interests)