Johnson v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Johnson challenges a local regulation restricting distribution of literature in Loring Park during the Pride Festival; the district court denied relief but this court initially granted injunctions pending appeal; the panel now reverses and remands for further proceedings.
- The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board administers Loring Park, a 42-acre public park hosting the Pride Festival for decades; festival participation is nonexclusive and open to the public; participants sign a nondiscrimination statement as a condition of booth access.
- Johnson, a professing Evangelical Christian, distributed Bibles at the festival for years but was denied a booth in 2009 after questions about his views on homosexuality; in 2010 the Board assured he could distribute literature, but in 2011 a settlement restricted distribution to booths and a separate material drop area, effectively foreclosing Johnson’s personal distribution.
- A settlement and 2011 Board resolution restricted literature to booths, a Board-sponsored booth outside the festival, and a material drop area; Johnson did not seek a Board-sponsored booth in 2011 or later and distributed no literature; the 2012 festival proceeded under those rules.
- Johnson sought a preliminary injunction arguing the regulation is an unconstitutional content-based or at least content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction; the district court denied the injunction, the panel previously granted one, and the court now reverses that denial and remands for further proceedings.
- The court applies Dataphase factors (irreparable harm, balance of harms, likelihood of success, public interest) and concludes Johnson has shown likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, supporting an injunction pending appeal.
- The Board’s rationale relies on crowd control and congestion arguments, but the court finds the evidence insufficient and the rule underinclusive, because it restricts distribution but not other expressive conduct (e.g., street performers) and does not adequately show a real nexus to safety and crowd management.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the restriction, if content-neutral, narrowly tailored to a significant interest? | Johnson argues the rule is not narrowly tailored to crowd control. | Board contends the rule serves crowd control and safety. | Yes, Johnson shows likelihood of success on merits; the rule is not narrowly tailored on this record. |
| Does the rule further a significant government interest in public safety and festival management? | Johnson contends evidence is insufficient to show the restriction serves the interest. | Board asserts congestion and safety benefits from restricting literature distribution to booths. | Not adequately demonstrated on this record; interest not sufficiently linked to the restriction. |
| Is the regulation underinclusive or viewpoint-discriminatory? | Underinclusive because viewers and performers can still express themselves in other ways. | Underinclusiveness not proven; speech alternatives exist. | Underinclusiveness shown; strengthens likelihood of success for Johnson. |
| Does Johnson suffer irreparable harm without an injunction? | Loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm. | Harm can be adequately compensated by damages or later relief. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction appropriate. |
| Is the injunction in the public interest? | Maintaining open public forum and speech rights aligns with public interest. | Public interest favors orderly Festival operation and safety. | Public interest supports injunction pending appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1943) (speech protected in public forums)
- Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1984) (content-neutral restrictions require narrow tailoring)
- Heffron v. Intl. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (state interest in orderly movement in a public forum)
- Kokinda v. United States, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990) (distribution of literature vs. passive reception)
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1983) (public forum speech rights in applying tailoring)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (narrow tailoring and substantial government interests)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (narrow tailoring may permit some regulation without least-restrictive means)
- Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (underinclusiveness raises doubts about government interest)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchs. Ass'n, 564 U.S. 790 (U.S. 2011) (content-neutral restrictions and alternatives analysis)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (irreparable harm in First Amendment contexts)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (test for preliminary injunctions (en banc))