Ricky Moore v. City of Dallas, Texas, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15990

Ricky Moore, an evangelical street evangelist, used a portable sketch board (~4'×2'×6.5') to solicit one-on-one and small-group religious conversations in Klyde Warren Park (Dallas).
The Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation (which manages the park under a Use Agreement) promulgated rules requiring a permit for activities ‘‘intended to attract an audience’’ (the Public Event Rule) and for ‘‘structures larger than 4’ by 4’’’ (the Structure Rule).
Park staff repeatedly told Moore his sketch board violated the Public Event Rule and later issued a 90-day trespass warning after Moore refused to leave; Moore sued city officials and sought a preliminary injunction.
Defendants later informed Moore (in writing) that his described activity did not constitute a public event and that he could engage in his activity on external sidewalks or obtain a permit; they continued to assert the Structure Rule might apply to his board.
The district court denied Moore’s preliminary injunction: holding Moore’s Public Event Rule claim moot (defendants conceded non-enforcement) and rejecting his Structure Rule challenges under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Structure Rule is an unconstitutional time, place, manner restriction	Moore: rule is overly broad/not narrowly tailored and burdens speech	Defendants: rule is content-neutral, advances safety and space-coordination, leaves alternatives	Court: rule is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to substantial interests and leaves ample alternatives; Moore unlikely to succeed
Whether the Structure Rule vests unbridled discretion (prior restraint)	Moore: rule lacks objective standards and grants officials too much discretion	Defendants: rule regulates objects, not speech, and is not closely tied to expression	Court: no close nexus to expression, so facial unbridled-discretion claim fails
Whether the Structure Rule is unconstitutionally vague	Moore: rule fails to give fair notice and allows arbitrary enforcement	Defendants: size-based rule gives reasonable notice; examples (tents, tables) clarify scope	Court: rule gives fair notice and is not void for vagueness in context of potential trespass/criminal enforcement
Whether the Public Event Rule claim is live or moot	Moore: rule chills his speech; challenge should proceed	Defendants: after complaint, they clarified the rule does not apply to Moore’s activity and promised non-enforcement	Court: claim is moot; government’s clear non-enforcement statement (presumed in good faith) extinguishes the controversy

Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir.) (preliminary injunction review standard)
Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.) (preliminary injunction elements)
Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351 (5th Cir.) (extraordinary circumstances standard on injunction reversal)
Serv. Emp. Int’l Union, Local 5 v. City of Houston, 595 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (intermediate scrutiny for time, place, manner restrictions)
Thomas v. City of Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (U.S. Supreme Court) (park regulation and time, place, manner analysis)
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (U.S. Supreme Court) (unbridled licensing discretion/prior restraint)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. Supreme Court) (narrow tailoring under time, place, manner scrutiny)
Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741 (5th Cir.) (mootness doctrine)
Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d 574 (5th Cir.) (government non-enforcement statements and lighter burden on mootness)
Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness of Houston, Inc. v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 541 (5th Cir.) (vagueness / common-meaning terms)