Marcavage v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 98

Plaintiffs Marcavage and Lefemine, protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden, were arrested after they failed to comply with police orders to move from a no‑demonstration zone to a designated demonstration area.
The NYPD used a three‑zone system around the Garden: a frozen zone, a no‑demonstration zone, and a demonstration zone.
Plaintiffs alleged the NYPD policy violated the First Amendment and that their arrests violated the Fourth Amendment.
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding the policy was a permissible time/place/manner restriction and the arrests had probable cause.
The court dismissed equitable relief claims for lack of standing and upheld damages jurisdiction, affirming the district court’s ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the no‑demonstration zone was a permissible TPM restriction	Marcavage/Lefemine argue the zone is overbroad and suppresses protected speech	Defendants contend the zone is content‑neutral, narrowly tailored to security/congestion needs	Yes, the restriction was permissible as TPM
Whether plaintiffs have standing for equitable relief	Plaintiffs claim ongoing risk of similar injuries in NY; seeks declaratory/injunctive relief	No certainly impending injury; no live controversy	Lacks standing to seek equitable relief; JP claims dismissed for lack of standing
Whether probable cause supported arrest	Arrest was unlawful; officers mischaracterized conduct	There was probable cause to arrest for obstruction of governmental administration and related offenses	Probable cause existed; Fourth Amendment claim correctly dismissed

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (standard for TPM restrictions; narrowly tailored and ample channels)
Grace v. United States, 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (signs/leaflets in public fora; traditional public forum)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (peaceful picketing; traditional public forum considerations)
Make the Road by Walking v. Turner, 378 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) (speech protections in traditional public fora)
United for Peace & Justice v. City of New York, 323 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2003) (adequacy of alternative channels; proximity to audience)
Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2006) (balancing congestion/security with TPM restrictions; narrow tailoring)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (standing requirements for declaratory/injunctive relief)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (standing requires certainly impending injury)
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (standing for prospective relief in injunctions)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (probable cause analysis without strict one‑to‑one with charges)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (probable cause and reasonable officer perspective)