Michael Marcavage v. City of Chicag
659 F.3d 626
7th Cir.2011Background
- Games held in Chicago July 2006; plaintiffs are Repent America volunteers promoting gospel message.
- Plaintiffs protested at three venues—Soldier Field, Navy Pier/Gateway Park, and Wrigley Field—where police ordered changes to outreach location.
- Defendants include City of Chicago, Chicago PD officers, and MPEA which manages Navy Pier.
- Plaintiffs alleged First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, and IRFRA violations, later adding state-law claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for City Defendants on Soldier Field and Wrigley Field claims and dismissed/NPO the others; remand on Navy Pier/Gateway Park policy.
- This appeal affirms some claims and remands the Gateway Park issue for further district court evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment, Soldier Field and Wrigley Field conduct | Deferio/Marcavage claim blocking sidewalks violated speech rights | Orders to move were content-neutral, narrowly tailored, with ample alternatives | Summary judgment for City Defendants affirmed on these claims |
| Equal Protection at Soldier Field and Wrigley Field | Treating protesters differently from attendees violated equal protection | No similarly-situated individuals show different treatment | Affirmed in favor of City Defendants (no triable issue) |
| Fourth Amendment at Wrigley Field | Arrest lacked probable cause for disorderly conduct | Arrest supported by probable cause due to obstruction and conduct | Affirmed district court; arrest supported by probable cause |
| Navy Pier/Gateway Park policy constitutionality | Policy overly broad; restricts small groups; potential First Amendment violation | Policy reasonable, content-neutral; Navy Pier nonpublic forum; Gateway Park more protective | Remanded for district court to evaluate the Policy’s constitutionality with full record |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Affirmed district court’s decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1980) (public forums and restriction justifications can be content-neutral)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (time, place, and manner restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored)
- Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (First Amendment; not all spaces are absolute; alternative channels matter)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (speech rights must yield to substantial traffic/pedestrian safety interests with reasonable alternatives)
- Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 150 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 1998) (distinguishes Navy Pier (nonpublic forum) from Gateway Park (traditional public forum))
- Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (U.S. 2002) (permit requirements for expressive activity evaluated for tailoring in parks)
- Knowles v. City of Waco, 462 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2006) (permits for small groups often unconstitutional or not narrowly tailored)
- Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (permit schemes for open spaces scrutinized for tailoring and impact on small groups)