Steven Lefemine v. Dan Wideman, 672 F.3d 292

Plaintiff Lefemine and Columbia Christians for Life conducted a public sidewalk protest in Greenwood County in Nov 2005 with large, graphic antiabortion signs.
Sheriff’s Office deputies investigated complaints about the protest near a busy road and spoke with Lefemine about removing or restricting the signs due to safety concerns.
Chief Deputy Frederick instructed that protesters could continue only if they removed or hid the signs; the content of the signs was treated as the basis for the restriction.
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on rights violations but upheld qualified immunity for Defendants and denied attorney’s fees, while enjoining future content-based restrictions.
Defendants cross-appealed on injunctive relief issues; Plaintiff cross-appealed on other rulings. Demonstrations occurred again in 2006–2007 without incident.
On appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s rulings, including qualified immunity for Defendants, denial of attorney’s fees, and the injunction protecting Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants had qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims	Lefemine contends rights were clearly established and violated.	Defendants argue their conduct was reasonable and not clearly unlawful.	Yes, qualified immunity affirmed for Defendants
Whether the district court abused its discretion on declaratory relief	Sought declaratory judgment that rights were violated and an injunction.	District court implicitly granted declaratory relief; explicit ruling unnecessary.	No abuse; declaratory relief effectively recognized
Whether attorney’s fees should have been awarded to Plaintiff	Prevailing party entitled to fees under §1988.	No prevailing-party status and no other damages; fee denial appropriate.	No abuse; fee award affirmed as denied
Whether injunctive relief against Frederick (and related capacity questions) was appropriate on cross-appeal	Injunctive relief against ongoing conduct remains proper.	Injunctive relief against Frederick in current capacity should be dismissed; concerns about official vs individual capacity.	Injunctive relief upheld; proper under ongoing constitutional protections

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clarifies qualified-immunity standard)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (clearly established right inquiry tied to specific context)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (limits on offensive speech; government can regulate to protect public safety)
Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (standard for content-based restrictions on speech)
Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2003) (police-power interests in traffic safety; anti-abortion protest context)
Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (content-based vs content-neutral analysis framework)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (neutral regulation preserves content neutrality)
Berger v. Battaglia, 779 F.2d 992 (4th Cir. 1985) (heckler’s veto as a concern in First Amendment enforcement)
Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (content-neutral vs content-based distinctions and elections)
Grace v. United States, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (government may regulate protests to protect interests; no right to protest anywhere anytime)
Ovadal v. City of Madison, Wis., 469 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2006) (illustrates nuance in content-based regulation in public forums)