Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Education Fund v. Port Authority
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16128
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Port Authority buses advertising space denied coalition's Ex-Offender Voting Rights Project ads due to a written policy banning noncommercial ads.
- Coalition sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment violation; bench trial followed by cross-summary judgment.
- District Court found evidence of viewpoint discrimination; Port Authority's asserted noncommercial rationale was pretext.
- Key actors: Lisa Krebbs (ACLU), Anthony Hickton (Port Authority Director of Sales), Chris Hess (in-house counsel).
- Port Authority had previously accepted several noncommercial ads (Just Harvest, Fair Housing Partnership, Women’s Law Project) that educated the public and did not promote monetary interests.
- Court stated it need not decide forum type but held there was viewpoint discrimination based on comparator evidence and pretext analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Port Authority’s rejection of the coalition ad viewpoint discrimination? | Coalition asserts rejection based on hostile viewpoint to rights-education message. | Port Authority claims noncommercial rationale aligns with policy and is viewpoint-neutral. | Yes; ruling found viewpoint discrimination. |
| Was the noncommercial rationale a pretext for discrimination? | Comparator ads (noncommercial) show selective treatment and pretext. | Rationale was facially neutral and not pretextual given comparator evidence. | Yes; pretext supported viewpoint-discrimination finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992) (strict prohibition on viewpoint discrimination in content-based restrictions)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (nonpublic/public-forum distinctions with permissible viewpoint-neutral restrictions)
- Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) (comparator-analysis and pretext considerations in discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for evaluating pretext in discrimination claims)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (public forums and strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions in traditional and designated fora)
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1974) (nonpublic-forum doctrine and viewpoint-neutral restrictions allowed)