John Brindley v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 934 F.3d 461

Background

Virginia Run Cove (the Cove) is a two-lane paved drive that connects directly to Summer Avenue and provides access to parking for several businesses including a Planned Parenthood clinic, a gas station, a church, and an ICE office; there are no signs telling the public it is private.
Developer 5325 Summer Avenue Properties recorded a final plat dedicating the streets, rights-of-way, easements, and rights of access "to the public use forever." Shortly after, a quitclaim deed conveyed the Cove to the property owners’ association and described it as a "Private Drive" but referenced the recorded plat.
On May 1, 2017, John Brindley stood near the Planned Parenthood parking-lot entrance to protest; clinic staff told him the Cove was private, police ordered him to move to Summer Avenue several hundred feet away, and he complied.
Brindley sued the City of Memphis and officers, asserting (1) First Amendment violation because the Cove is a traditional public forum and his exclusion was unconstitutional, and (2) a vague due process policy claim; he sought a preliminary injunction to access the Cove.
The district court denied the preliminary injunction for lack of likelihood of success on the merits; the Sixth Circuit reviewed that legal conclusion de novo and considered forum classification dispositive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Cove is a traditional public forum	Brindley: Cove looks and functions like a public street and therefore public-forum protections apply	City: Cove is privately owned; property-record language (plat/deed) limits public-forum status; physical appearance alone insufficient	Held: Cove is a traditional public forum based on appearance, function, and recorded dedication to public use
Whether private ownership defeats forum status	Brindley: Private title does not negate public-forum status where street functions as public	City: Private ownership and deed language show it is a private drive not open as a public forum	Held: Ownership does not control; indistinguishable appearance and public function govern
Effect of the final plat dedication and subsequent quitclaim deed	Brindley: Plat dedication (and sale of lots referencing the plat) created an irrevocable dedication or at minimum implied public acceptance	City: Quitclaim describing the Cove as "Private Drive" revoked or limited the dedication	Held: Plat dedication stands; quitclaim referenced the plat (incorporating dedication) and public use/transfer completed dedication
Whether strict scrutiny could be met to exclude protesters from the Cove	Brindley: No compelling interest justifies exclusion	City: Did not assert an argument that the restriction survives strict scrutiny on appeal	Held: Because Cove is a traditional public forum, exclusion must survive strict scrutiny; appellees did not show (and could not) that it would

Key Cases Cited

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (public streets are archetypal traditional public fora)
Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (public fora not limited to government-owned property)
Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (streets and parks held in trust for public use)
United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (internal post office sidewalk was nonpublic forum; function matters)
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (military compound sidewalks are nonpublic due to special context)
United Church of Christ v. Gateway Econ. Dev. Corp. of Greater Cleveland, 383 F.3d 449 (privately owned sidewalk functioning as public sidewalk is traditional public forum)
McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718 (privately owned sidewalk on campus classified as traditional public forum)
Miller v. City of Cincinnati, 622 F.3d 524 (forum categories and applicable standards)
Bays v. City of Fairborn, 668 F.3d 814 (likelihood of success is crucial in First Amendment preliminary injunctions)
Hall v. Edgewood Partners Ins. Ctr., 878 F.3d 524 (four-factor preliminary injunction standard)