Rodney Keister v. Stuart Bell
879 F.3d 1282
11th Cir.2018Background
- Rodney Keister, a non‑affiliated evangelical preacher, was told he needed a University of Alabama (UA) Grounds Use Permit (GUP) to speak on campus after preaching near Smith and Lloyd Halls; he moved to the intersection of University Boulevard and Hackberry Lane and was again told the GUP requirement applied there.
- The intersection lies within UA’s campus "heart," is surrounded by UA buildings, campus signage, landscaping fences, and UA parking lots, though the streets extend beyond campus and sidewalks connect with the city grid.
- UA’s grounds use policy requires unaffiliated speakers to obtain sponsorship from a UA department or registered student organization and to submit a GUP at least 10 working days in advance (with narrow spontaneous and counter‑event exceptions); denials have an appeal process.
- Keister sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, arguing the policy violated the First Amendment (and in a footnote raised vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment); he moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement at the intersection.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the intersection was a limited public forum and the policy survived the applicable (lower) level of scrutiny; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the intersection is a traditional public forum or a limited public forum | Keister: intersection is a public sidewalk indistinguishable from city sidewalks and falls within a public street easement, so it is a traditional public forum | UA: intersection is within the university campus, marked as UA property, and the university did not intend to open it as a public forum | The court held the intersection is a limited public forum (within UA campus) |
| Whether Keister was entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the GUP at the intersection | Keister: the GUP impermissibly restricts speech at a traditional public forum and therefore cannot survive forum scrutiny | UA: as to a limited public forum, restrictions may be reasonable and viewpoint neutral; UA’s policy is aimed to protect the educational mission and campus operations | Court affirmed denial of preliminary injunction because forum is limited and Keister did not contest application of the lower standard or demonstrate likelihood of success |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (holding perimeter sidewalks indistinguishable from city sidewalks were traditional public fora)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (describing forum analysis and limited public forum principles)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (defining traditional public forum standards)
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (discussing forum categories and limits on creating fora)
- Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir.) (university sidewalks held to be limited public fora; physical resemblance to public sidewalks not dispositive)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (noting university mission distinct from parks/streets for forum analysis)
- Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (limited public forum restrictions permitted if reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (access to military base roads/sidewalks did not convert base to public forum)