786 F. Supp. 2d 373
D.D.C.2011Background
- DARTT leafleted outside Verizon Center during Ringling Bros. circus events (Mar. 24–25, 2011).
- Defendants allegedly directed protesters to move from under the overhang to the sidewalk edge; instructions were given by venue staff and police.
- DARTT claimed right to leaflet anywhere on the sidewalk so long as not blocking egress, and complied with directions to relocate.
- Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent interference with First Amendment leafleting; motion denied for lack of irreparable harm.
- Circus returned in March 2012 and the court did not resolve broader constitutional questions; decision focused on irreparable harm and likelihood of success.
- Court noted issues of Monell liability, state actor status, and private property boundary were not reached at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm shown for preliminary relief | DARTT alleges ongoing First Amendment harm requiring relief | No imminent irreparable harm; activity could be accommodated | Irreparable harm not shown |
| Likelihood of success on the merits | Leafleting restricted due to purpose of protest | Restrictions were reasonable time/place/manner limits | Not demonstrated; plaintiff not likely to prevail on merits |
| Proper scope of injunctive analysis given timing | Early relief required to protect rights | Claims contingent and not ripe | Court did not resolve ripeness/standing issues; denied for irreparable harm and not necessary to reach others |
| Stay within bounds of time/place/manner restrictions | Restrictions target content or location unjustly | Restrictions non-content based and targeted at safety/egress | Court did not reach substantive merits of restraint criteria at this stage |
| Monell/State actor status and private-property classification | Potential municipal liability if policy or custom caused injury | Not necessary to decide at this stage | Not decided in this order |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for a preliminary injunction)
- Wisconsin Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm required; later relief weighs against irreparable harm)
- CityFed Financial Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (flexible balancing; need some injury to justify relief)
- Fraternal Order of Police Library of Congress Labor Committee v. Library of Congress, 639 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009) (injunction standards and irreparable harm considerations)
- Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability theory for policy/ custom)
- Feirson v. District of Columbia, 506 F.3d 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (rebuttal considerations on official capacity/ constitutional claims)