907 F.3d 941
6th Cir.2018Background
- Kentucky Educational Television (KET), a state agency, historically invited any candidate legally on the ballot to appear on its program Kentucky Tonight; in 2014 it adopted objective criteria to limit a U.S. Senate debate to viable candidates.
- KET’s general-election criteria required: ballot qualification (party nominee or 5,000 signatures), at least $100,000 in contributions, at least 10% in an independent poll, and a campaign website; candidates had to meet them by Aug. 15.
- Libertarian candidate David Patterson qualified for the ballot on Aug. 11, raised no campaign funds, and did not meet the polling or donation thresholds; KET did not invite him and provided the criteria after being asked.
- Patterson and the Libertarian Party sued, alleging viewpoint discrimination and other constitutional violations; the district court granted summary judgment to KET and dismissed certain defendants; Patterson appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding KET’s exclusion was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral editorial decision under controlling precedent and that Patterson failed to show unconstitutional discrimination or that the criteria themselves were unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding Patterson from a public-TV debate violated the First Amendment | Patterson: KET excluded him because of his views/party; criteria were pretextual | KET: exclusion measured candidate viability, was viewpoint-neutral editorial discretion | Held: No First Amendment violation; exclusion was reasonable and viewpoint-neutral under Forbes |
| Whether KET’s objective debate-qualification criteria were unconstitutional | Patterson: criteria function like ballot-access restrictions or were unreasonable | KET: criteria regulate televised debate participation, not ballot access; criteria were objective and reasonable | Held: Criteria constitutional; Forbes permits such editorial discretion |
| Whether internal emails and other evidence show discriminatory intent sufficient to overcome summary judgment | Patterson: emails and remarks show hostility to Libertarians/Patterson or reveal pretext | KET: emails do not show Patterson-specific or viewpoint-based exclusion; they reflect permissible selection judgment | Held: Emails insufficient to show viewpoint discrimination or pretext; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether district court erred in dismissing claims against host Goodman and denying leave to amend/reconsideration | Patterson: Goodman was intimately involved; new evidence justifies reconsideration/amendment | KET: complaint lacked plausible allegations against Goodman; motion came after discovery with no new probative evidence | Held: Dismissal of Goodman’s claim affirmed; denial of reconsideration/leave to amend not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Arkansas Educational Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) (public broadcasters may use reasonable, viewpoint-neutral criteria to exclude nonserious candidates from debates)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (framework for determining when access restrictions are viewpoint-based or reasonable and neutral)
- Lubin v. Parnish, 415 U.S. 709 (1974) (ballot-access restrictions unconstitutional if they do not leave ballot genuinely open)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for surviving a motion to dismiss)
- Leone v. BMI Refractory Servs., Inc., 893 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2018) (qualified-immunity standard review reference)
- Maben v. Thelen, 887 F.3d 252 (6th Cir. 2018) (requiring constitutional violation to overcome qualified immunity)
- Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc., 758 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of certain summary-judgment rulings)
- Luna v. Bell, 887 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard for reconsideration review)
- Crawford v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 868 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard for review of denial of leave to amend)