Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski
411 F. App'x 541
4th Cir.2010Background
- Rock for Life-UMBC, a student org at UMBC, challenged UMBC speech policies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after GAP display disputes.
- GAP is a traveling photo-mural exhibit comparing abortion to genocide; posters come in large formats.
- UMBC initially denied GAP at University Center Plaza, then relocated to Commons Terrace, then to North Lawn after concerns.
- UMBC policies involved sexual harassment, emotional harassment, and a facilities use policy governing time/place/manner of events.
- Rock for Life proposed security for the GAP display; the parties did not reach a firm agreement on who would pay.
- Plaintiffs sued for damages; district court granted partial judgment on pleadings and summary judgment; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge sexual-harassment policy | Rock for Life lacks standing due to overbreadth. | Policy chilled speech; plaintiffs have credible threat of enforcement. | Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge sexual-harassment policy. |
| Standing to challenge code of conduct | Tkacik comment caused chilling of speech; damage claims viable. | No concrete enforcement; no injury-in-fact. | Chill claims insufficient; standing lacking for code of conduct. |
| Facil ities use policy mootness and facial challenge | Policy’s broad discretion and notice issues unconstitutional; facial challenge viable. | Policy revised; moot as to facial challenge for damages. | Facil ities use policy facial challenge moot; as-applied challenge survives. |
| As-applied challenge to facilities use policy | Removal of GAP from Terrace was content-based and not narrowly tailored. | Reasons were content-neutral time/place/manner constraints. | Triable issue; district court erred in granting summary judgment on the as-applied claim. |
| Qualified immunity on as-applied challenge | Violations of clearly established rights; no immunity. | No clear violation given context; immunity applies. | District court erred; but defendants entitled to qualified immunity on as-applied claim according to court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework; later narrowed by Pearson)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (retains discretion to choose order of prongs; overrules mandatory sequence)
- Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1992) (time/place/manner restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (government may regulate time/place/manner to serve significant interests)
- Heffron v. Int'l Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (First Amendment does not guarantee speech in all times/places)
- N.C. Right to Life v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (standing and chilling effects in First Amendment challenges)
- Reyes v. City of Lynchburg, 300 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2002) (subjective chilling alone insufficient; need concrete injury)
- Mt. Healthy City School Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (preponderance of evidence to show action would have occurred anyway)
- Ovadal v. City of Madison, 416 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2005) (heckler's veto context; content-based risk)