Paul Gerlich v. Steven Leath
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2490
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Iowa State University (ISU) allows recognized student groups to use ISU trademarks if designs comply with Trademark Guidelines administered by the Trademark Office.
- NORML ISU (student chapter advocating marijuana-law reform) submitted a t‑shirt (approved) that included Cy the Cardinal and a small cannabis leaf; a newspaper article publicized it and quoted the group's president.
- After political pushback (contacts from legislature and governor’s office), ISU officials placed NORML ISU’s reorder on hold, imposed an unprecedented prior‑review requirement on the group, and revised its Trademark Guidelines to bar designs promoting illegal or unhealthy products (including drugs).
- Thereafter ISU denied multiple NORML ISU designs that included a cannabis leaf or explicit advocacy phrasing, though it approved non‑leaf designs and full‑name uses of the group.
- Two NORML ISU officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on as‑applied First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination) and entered a permanent injunction; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue in individual capacity | Plaintiffs personally suffered First Amendment injury when ISU denied their trademark applications | Plaintiffs only assert organizational rights; thus lack individual injury | Plaintiffs have standing; individual students may challenge university actions affecting their speech |
| Viewpoint discrimination in trademark licensing | ISU singled out NORML ISU for unique scrutiny and denials motivated by political pressure and disagreement with NORML’s advocacy | Actions were viewpoint‑neutral administration of trademark policy to avoid implied university endorsement | Court held ISU engaged in viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment |
| Government‑speech doctrine defense | Plaintiffs’ use of ISU marks is private speech in a limited public forum, so government‑speech doctrine does not apply | ISU argues trademark licensing is government speech and therefore exempt from Free Speech Clause constraints | Court held ISU created a limited public forum; even under Walker factors, the record does not support government‑speech characterization |
| Scope of injunction | ISU contends injunction is overbroad if it permits designs violating viewpoint‑neutral trademark rules | Plaintiffs seek relief preventing viewpoint discrimination and banning denials solely because designs include a cannabis leaf | Injunction upheld as appropriately targeted; cannabis‑leaf uses for NORML ISU do not violate ISU’s neutral policies |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (holding university regulations cannot discriminate against student viewpoint in a limited public forum)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (students may sue on behalf of student organization to vindicate First Amendment rights)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech is not subject to Free Speech Clause restrictions)
- Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (2015) (factors for determining whether speech is government speech)
- Gay & Lesbian Students Ass'n v. Gohn, 850 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1988) (viewpoint discrimination found where university applied unusual procedures and responded to political pressure)
- Mead v. Palmer, 794 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity does not apply to requests for injunctive relief)