Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign v. King County
781 F.3d 489
9th Cir.2015Background
- King County’s Metro contracts with Titan to sell advertising on bus exteriors under a written policy that pre-screens ads and contains categorical content exclusions and two "civility clauses" (§§ 6.4(D) and 6.4(E)) barring material reasonably foreseeable to disrupt the transit system or incite threats to public safety.
- SeaMAC sought to run an ad critical of Israel on 12 buses; Titan and County officials initially approved it, but a local TV story provoked thousands of complaints and some threats of vandalism or violence aimed at buses and passengers.
- After threatening messages, photos of injured passengers left at Metro offices, driver refusals, and law-enforcement warnings, the County Executive withdrew approval of SeaMAC’s ad and simultaneously rejected counter-ads from pro-Israel groups, then amended the policy to bar political/ideological ads.
- SeaMAC sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a First Amendment violation; the district court granted summary judgment for the County; the panel affirms in part and dismisses a conditional cross-appeal as moot.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held the bus-ad program created a limited public forum (not a designated public forum) and that applying § 6.4(D) to exclude SeaMAC’s ad was both reasonable (given a real, reasonably foreseeable risk of disruption) and viewpoint neutral (the County excluded ads on both sides of the issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum classification: what forum did Metro create? | Metro opened buses to political "cause" ads, so a designated public forum exists requiring strict scrutiny. | Written pre-screening policy and routine rejections show selective access → limited public forum. | Limited public forum. |
| Validity of exclusion standard (§6.4(D)): reasonable? | Threat of disruption was speculative; security planning could neutralize risks. | §6.4(D) reasonably furthers safety of transit by excluding speech that foreseeably will disrupt operations. | Reasonable: record shows real, reasonably foreseeable threats (vandalism, ridership loss, resource diversion). |
| Viewpoint discrimination: was exclusion motivated by opposition to SeaMAC's viewpoint? | County effectively gave in to a heckler’s veto and targeted SeaMAC’s viewpoint after initial approval. | County rejected all ads on the Israel–Palestine topic (both viewpoints) for safety reasons; action was content-based but viewpoint neutral. | No viewpoint discrimination; exclusion applied to opposing viewpoints concurrently. |
| Remedy/standard of review: what test applies in this forum and does the County need least-restrictive means? | If designated forum, strict scrutiny applies and narrow tailoring must be proved; County failed to show narrow tailoring. | In a limited forum, restrictions need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral; no least-restrictive-means requirement. | Limited-forum standard applies; no least-restrictive-means requirement; County met the standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (forum analysis distinguishes types of public fora)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (framework for traditional, designated, and limited public fora)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (government intent and policy guide forum classification)
- Arkansas Educ. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) (distinguishing general versus selective access to a forum)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (speech may be restricted if it reasonably causes substantial disruption)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (objective, definite standards limit official discretion)
- Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (transit ad space treated differently; governmental commercial context relevant)
- United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) (limited forum doctrine and content-based restrictions in nonpublic fora)
- Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts independently review claimed disruption to determine whether risks are real)