Saieg v. City of Dearborn
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10575
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Saieg attends the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, where he distributes Christian literature to Muslims; the City imposes a leafleting restriction on inner sidewalks adjacent to festival attractions and outer perimeter roads/sidewalks, allowing leafleting only from fixed booths; Haddad, the new police chief, enforces the restriction starting 2009; ACP planned roaming leafleting in 2009 but was limited to a booth, with improvements in 2010; Saieg sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment claims and other constitutional rights; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and denied TRO, while the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction for 2010, and Saieg appeals the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the leafleting restriction is a valid time, place, and manner restriction | Saieg | Dearborn | Yes, in part; court held not valid as to inner and outer perimeters, invalidating restriction for free speech. |
| Whether the restriction is content neutral | Saieg | Dearborn | Content-neutral; upheld as neutral regulation of speech locations rather than message content. |
| Whether the restriction serves a substantial governmental interest | Saieg | Dearborn | Not substantially served; interests undermined by allowing sidewalk vendors and public traffic. |
| Whether the limit is narrowly tailored | Saieg | Dearborn | Outer perimeter not narrowly tailored; restriction broader than necessary. |
| Whether ample alternative channels of communication exist | Saieg | Dearborn | Court found the question unresolved but still concluded invalidity of restriction; ample channels exist but not sufficient to save the policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (test for content-neutral time/place/manner restrictions)
- Hill v. City of Cincinnati, 622 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2010) (public forums and content neutrality)
- Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1981) (fixed-location restrictions satisfy substantial government interest in crowd control)
- Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (exemptions may undermine the rationale for restriction)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (narrow tailoring requires regulation not to burden more speech than necessary)
- Grace v. United States, 461 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1983) (narrowly tailored restrictions must be connected to substantial government interests)