Initiative & Referendum Institute v. United States Postal Service
685 F.3d 1066
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- In 1998 the Postal Service banned soliciting signatures on petitions on all Postal Service real property, punishable by fine and imprisonment.
- Appellants used interior post office sidewalks to circulate petitions to place initiatives and referenda on ballots.
- In 2002 district court discovery and enforcement policy narrowed the ban, excluding sidewalks forming the perimeter indistinguishable from public sidewalks and limiting enforcement to collecting, not soliciting.
- The DC Circuit reversed, holding interior sidewalks were not a public forum and that a ban on collection could be permissible; the court remanded for a factual record, leading to subsequent regulatory amendments.
- In 2010 the Postal Service amended regulations to prohibit collecting but not soliciting signatures on all property except Grace sidewalks, which were exempt; the district court found this moot the appellate issue, and the court affirmed the district court.
- Final posture: appellants challenge the regulation on face as unconstitutional; the court holds interior sidewalks are not public forums and that banning collection is reasonable in a nonpublic forum; Grace sidewalks are exempt and mootness defeats injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are interior postal sidewalks public forums? | Appellants contend interior sidewalks are public forums with protected speech. | Postal Service argues interior sidewalks are nonpublic given purpose and location, justifying reasonable restrictions. | Interior sidewalks are not traditional or designated public forums; reviewed as nonpublic forum. |
| Is banning collection on interior sidewalks a reasonable restriction in a nonpublic forum? | Ban on collection is too broad and disruptive, lacking reasonable fit. | Regulation is not the most narrowly tailored but is reasonable to preserve access and avoid endorsement. | Yes, banning collection is a reasonable time/place/manner restriction in a nonpublic forum. |
| Does the Grace sidewalk exemption moot the case? | Grace sidewalks, a public forum, should be enjoined from the ban. | Grace sidewalks are exempt in the regulation, mootness applies. | Grace sidewalk exemption moots the challenge to those sidewalks; case as to Grace is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (Supreme Court, 1990) (forum analysis depends on location and purpose of sidewalk)
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (Supreme Court, 1983) (Grace sidewalks are traditional public forums indistinguishable from ordinary sidewalks)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1983) (traditional public forum framework and time/place/manner restrictions)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (Supreme Court, 1985) (designated/nonpublic forums and reasonable restrictions)
- Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (Supreme Court, 1992) (solicitation vs. collection distinctions in forum analysis)