Paul Gerlich v. Steven Leath
861 F.3d 697
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Iowa State University (ISU) permits recognized student organizations to use ISU trademarks subject to Trademark Guidelines and review by the Trademark Licensing Office.
- NORML ISU (student chapter advocating marijuana-law reform) submitted T-Shirt Design #1 (used Cy the Cardinal and a cannabis leaf) which the Trademark Office initially approved and which thereafter received news coverage.
- After political inquiries and public pushback, ISU officials placed NORML ISU’s reorder on hold, revised the Trademark Guidelines to prohibit designs suggesting promotion of illegal or unhealthy drugs, and imposed special preapproval requirements on NORML ISU.
- The Trademark Office thereafter rejected all NORML ISU designs that included a cannabis leaf while approving other NORML ISU designs that did not use the leaf.
- NORML ISU officers (Gerlich and Furleigh) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court granted summary judgment on the as-applied First Amendment claim and enjoined viewpoint-based enforcement; ISU officials appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs (NORML ISU officers) were personally injured because ISU’s denials prevented their speech using ISU marks | Plaintiffs assert only organizational rights, not personal injury | Plaintiffs have standing — individual officers’ attempts to obtain trademark approval constituted protected speech and injury in fact |
| Viewpoint discrimination (as-applied) | ISU targeted NORML ISU because of political viewpoint; unique scrutiny and post-publicity policy changes show motive | ISU acted to avoid perceived endorsement and to protect university image (content-neutral) | ISU engaged in viewpoint discrimination in its limited public forum; summary judgment for plaintiffs on as-applied claim |
| Government-speech doctrine | Plaintiffs: ISU created a limited public forum by making marks available to many groups, so government-speech doctrine does not apply | Defendants: licensing of ISU trademarks is government speech and thus outside First Amendment scrutiny | Court: Trademark licensing created a limited public forum and the government-speech doctrine does not apply on this record |
| Qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: right against viewpoint discrimination in a university forum was clearly established | Defendants: legal contours (government speech vs. forum) were unsettled; officials entitled to immunity | Court: rights were clearly established; qualified immunity denied |
| Injunctive relief scope | Plaintiffs sought injunction preventing viewpoint-based enforcement and banning rejection for use of cannabis leaf | Defendants argued injunction too broad if it forces approval of marks that violate neutral trademark rules | Court: injunction appropriate — NORML ISU’s cannabis-leaf use did not violate neutral policies as applied; injunction not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (public university creating a forum for student expression may not engage in viewpoint discrimination)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (university facilities made available to student groups create a forum for First Amendment analysis)
- Christian Legal Soc. Chapter v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (discussion of limited public forums and viewpoint neutrality in university contexts)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government-speech doctrine and distinction between government speech and forum for private speech)
- Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (public college may not deny recognized-group benefits on basis of viewpoint)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires that clearly established law put officials on notice)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (schools may restrict student speech that advocates illegal drug use in certain contexts)