Occupy Nashville v. William Haslam, 769 F.3d 434

Occupy Nashville established a 24/7 protest on the Plaza, a public space atop the Capitol Complex used by state agencies.
Old Policy allowed open, unrestricted use of the Plaza on a first-come, first-served basis with some prior-reservation rights.
A new Use Policy imposed a curfew (10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m.) and later permit requirements, implemented without hearings or UAPA notice.
Arrests occurred at 3:00 a.m. on Oct. 28 and again later for allegedly violating the curfew; magistrates refused to sign warrants for lack of notice.
District Court granted partial summary judgment to Protesters on some claims and later the court issued a preliminary injunction; the defendants appealed seeking qualified immunity.
The core dispute is whether the Occupy protesters had a clearly established First Amendment right to indefinite occupation of the Plaza and whether the State Officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the right to indefinite occupation of a public plaza is clearly established.	Protesters claim a clearly established right to occupy Plaza to air grievances.	State Officials assert no clearly established right to indefinite occupation; Clark governs permissible curfews.	Not clearly established; qualified immunity applies.
Whether the Use Policy violated clearly established rights or state procedures for rulemaking.	Use Policy violated First Amendment rights and state administrative procedures.	Policy supported by Clark; proper interpretation and handling of occupancy power.	Qualified immunity applies; no clear constitutional violation established.
Whether the district court's liability ruling was properly reviewed under pendent appellate jurisdiction.	Liability determinations tied to qualified immunity.	Intertwined issues permit appellate review of liability.	Reversed to resolve under qualified immunity; judgment for State Officials warranted.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (first amendment time/place/manner limits; camping/sleeping in parks)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (clearly established law; objective reasonableness in qualified immunity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (two-step qualified immunity analysis can be revised to address the clearly established question first)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) (clearly established right must be defined at appropriate level of specificity)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (two-step analysis for qualified immunity; courts may address the second step first)
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (clearly established standard; requires pre-existing law beyond debate)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (qualified immunity protects reasonable officials from liability)