137 F. Supp. 3d 1127
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Left Field Media publishes Chicago Baseball and sells it for $2 on public sidewalks near Wrigley Field during Cubs home games.
- Plaintiff alleges First Amendment violations against two Chicago ordinances: no peddling on sidewalks adjacent to Wrigley Field and a peddler license requirement.
- In April 2015, vendor Smerge was ticketed for peddling in a no-peddling zone and moved across the street; sales reportedly declined after relocation.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief; a TRO was granted and later the magistrate recommended denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court applied Reed/Norton Ward framework to assess content neutrality, narrow tailoring, and alternative channels for speech.
- Wrigley Field area is a geographically unique, congested public sidewalk environment, affecting the court’s analysis of the city’s interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adjacent-Sidewalks Ordinance is content neutral | Left Field contends Reed requires content-based treatment due to newspaper exemption. | City and Mason treat ordinance as content-neutral; exemption not rendering it content-based. | Ordinance is content-neutral; no strict-scrutiny trigger. |
| Whether Adjacent-Sidewalks Ordinance is narrowly tailored | The ordinance overreaches by banning congestion rather than addressing true obstruction; proposed alternatives exist. | No-peddling zone is narrowly tailored to alleviate congestion and ensure safety given Wrigley Field’s unique footprint. | Court agrees ordinance is narrowly tailored and leaves ample alternatives. |
| Whether Peddler’s License Ordinance is constitutionally permissible | Watchtower-based challenge to licensing scheme as overbroad and inhibiting anonymity/spontaneity, with possible economic favoritism. | Licensing is content-neutral, minimal discretion, supports public safety and tax-protection interests. | License ordinance survives First Amendment scrutiny; not unconstitutionally broad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (content-based regulation requires strict scrutiny)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, and manner controls must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) (strict tailoring in public forum speech restrictions; narrow fit required)
- Weinberg v. City of Chicago, 310 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2002) (newspaper exemption not itself content-based; balancing congestion context)
- Norton v. City of Springfield, 768 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2014) (content-neutrality considerations in ordinance challenges)
- Wis. Right To Life, Inc. v. Barland, 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014) (First Amendment/public-interest considerations in injunctions)
- Marcavage v. City of Chicago, 659 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2011) (public sidewalks as traditional public forums; congestion considerations)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard and irreparable harm framework)