Mahoney v. Doe
395 U.S. App. D.C. 291
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Mahoney proposed a sidewalk chalk demonstration in front of the White House to protest abortion and Roe v. Wade anniversary; MPD warned the chalking would violate the Defacement Statute (D.C. Code § 22-3312.01) and withheld permission to chalk on Pennsylvania Ave.; MPD granted a permit to assemble in front of the White House with signs but prohibited chalking on the street surface; Mahoney amended his complaint after a failed TRO/injunction and added an MPD officer as a defendant; district court dismissed the complaint; on appeal the DC Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling and affirmed the Defacement Statute as applied and facially challenged under RFRA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial validity of the Defacement Statute | Mahoney argues overbreadth and broad discretion | District contends statute is neutral and not overbroad | Statute not facially invalid; valid as applied and not substantially overbroad |
| Constitutional as applied to chalking on public property | Chalking is protected expressive conduct in a traditional public forum | Regulation serves esthetic interest and is narrowly tailored | Constitutional as applied; time/place/m manner restriction in a traditional public forum |
| RFRA claim | Chalking burdened religious exercise | Regulation imposes only a single option among many; not a substantial burden | RFRA claim rejected; no substantial burden on religious exercise |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (protective scope for symbolic conduct under First Amendment)
- Grace v. United States, 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1983) (public forums and time/place/manner restrictions)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (public forums; policy of access for expressive activity)
- Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1984) (esthetic interest; temporary blight regulation in public forum)
- City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (U.S. 1984) (municipal esthetic regulation of signs in public spaces)
- O'Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1968) (intermediate scrutiny for conduct with expressive and nonexpressive elements)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., Inc., 535 U.S. 234 (U.S. 2002) (overbreadth doctrine; substantial chilling risk required)