National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Philadelphia
39 F. Supp. 3d 611
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- NAACP and City of Philadelphia filed cross-motions for summary judgment over airport advertising policies.
- In 2011, NAACP proposed the Misplaced Priorities ad for display in Philadelphia International Airport; City rejected it with no prior written policy in place.
- In March 2012 the Airport revised its Rules and Regulations governing ads; a settlement allowed the NAACP ad at two locations for three months and preserved NAACP’s right to amend the complaint.
- NAACP alleged two policies: a written policy banning non-commercial proposals and an unwritten policy deeming ads inconsistent with the Airport’s mission unlawful.
- Court analyzed standing, forum-type, viewpoint neutrality, and reasonableness to determine the constitutionality of both policies; summary judgment granted for NAACP on both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge unwritten policy | NAACP has injury in fact from unwritten policy. | No standing if unwritten policy exists independently of written policy. | NAACP has standing to challenge unwritten policy. |
| Written policy violates First Amendment as a forum restriction | Policy creates a limited/public forum; restrictions are unconstitutional. | No forum mischaracterization; restrictions reasonable given forum purpose. | Written policy unconstitutional; summary judgment for NAACP. |
| Existence and constitutionality of unwritten policy | There is an unwritten policy rejecting ads inconsistent with airport mission. | Bentley ad example and testimony do not prove unwritten policy. | Unwritten policy exists and is unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination. |
| Reasonableness and viewpoint neutrality | Policy is not viewpoint-neutral and not reasonably related to forum purposes. | Restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral in a multipurpose forum. | Unwritten policy fails reasonableness and is not viewpoint-neutral; NAACP entitled to summary judgment on First Amendment claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (unconstitutional unwritten policies and forum access principles)
- Kathleen Christ’s Bride Ministries, Inc. v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 148 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1998) (forum analysis and access in transit contexts)
- Int'l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (airport/terminal speech restrictions subject to reasonableness review)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (limited public fora and viewpoint-neutral restrictions)
- Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (designated vs. limited public fora; openness of access decisions)
- Ark. Educ. Telecomm. Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) (forum status when government designates access and reviews applications)
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (advertising space in public amenities treated under reasonable regulation)
- CBS v. City of Philadelphia (CBM), 148 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1998) (forum analysis for public advertising spaces in transit settings)