774 F.3d 1258
10th Cir.2014Background
- UDOT requires insurance and an indemnification form for permits to parade on Utah state highways.
- iMatter Utah and Positive Change Utah challenge these requirements under the First Amendment in district court and obtain summary judgment against the state.
- iMatter conducted parades on State Street sidewalks after being denied a UDOT permit due to the requirements.
- The district court concluded the requirements were facially invalid; the parties cross-appealed on as-applied versus facial challenges.
- The court applies traditional public-forum analysis and the narrow-tailoring standard to assess whether the requirements survive strict scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As-applied indigency exception viable? | iMatter argues indigent waiver is required. | Utah contends no indigency exception is constitutionally required when alternatives exist. | As-applied challenge fails; no indigency exception needed here. |
| Insurance requirement narrowly tailored to state interests? | Insurance cost and coverage are not tailored to actual risk or expenses. | Insurance reduces liability and supports public safety and accountability. | Insurance requirement not narrowly tailored; violates First Amendment. |
| Indemnification requirement narrowly tailored to state interests? | Indemnification imposes burdens for third-party claims outside permittees’ liability. | Indemnification aligns with accountability for parade-related claims. | Indemnification requirement not narrowly tailored; violates First Amendment. |
| Regulations are content-neutral and properly tailored under First Amendment standards? | Challenge to a facial validity based on the restraints on speech. | Regulations are content-neutral and enforceable with narrow tailoring. | Regulations are content-neutral but fail narrow tailoring; facial invalidity follows. |
| Are there ample alternatives for speech that could justify the restrictions? | Sidewalks and other fora do not fully substitute for State Street. | Alternative channels exist; state need not employ the least restrictive means. | Even with ample alternatives, the restrictions are not narrowly tailored; unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) (time, place, and manner restrictions require narrow tailoring and ample alternatives)
- Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (fourth requirement: avoid overly broad licensing discretion)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (tradition of ample channels for communication; forum analysis guidance)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (traditional public fora principles and government restrictions on speech)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, and manner restrictions must be narrowly tailored and not overbroad)
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (indigency not always required; focusing on whether fee blocks protected activity)
- Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941) (parade license fees tied to expenses of administration and public order)