Wade Steven Gardner v. William Mutz
962 F.3d 1329
11th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals and Confederate-heritage organizations) sued to stop the City of Lakeland from relocating a 1908 Confederate cenotaph from Munn Park (in a historic district) to Veterans Park.
- Claims: Count 1 — First Amendment (City's removal abridged plaintiffs' free-speech interests tied to the monument); Count 4 — Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process (alleged lack of notice/hearing).
- The district court treated the First Amendment challenge on the merits, held the cenotaph was government speech (Pleasant Grove), dismissed that claim with prejudice, and dismissed the due-process claim without prejudice for lack of standing.
- Plaintiffs did not obtain a stay; the City moved the monument during the appeal, and defendants argued the appeal was moot.
- The Eleventh Circuit held plaintiffs lack Article III standing for both federal claims (injuries neither concrete nor particularized), vacated the with-prejudice dismissal of the First Amendment claim and remanded to dismiss without prejudice, and affirmed dismissal without prejudice of the due-process claim.
- The court also held the district court erred procedurally by resolving the merits before resolving standing (jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment standing | Removal abridged plaintiffs' free-speech interest because the cenotaph communicates Southern/Confederate political speech | Cenotaph is government speech; plaintiffs have no cognizable private-speech injury | No Article III standing: alleged harms are not concrete or particularized; court cannot reach merits; First Amendment dismissal must be without prejudice |
| District-court methodology | District court could resolve government-speech issue on the merits | Defendants had urged standing defects but also argued government speech going to merits | District court erred by bypassing standing; jurisdictional questions must be resolved before merits unless statutory intertwining applies |
| Due Process standing | City deprived plaintiffs of procedural due process (no reasonable notice/hearing) | Plaintiffs lack a distinct, personal liberty or property interest tied to the cenotaph placement | No Article III standing for due-process claim for same reasons (injuries vague and undifferentiated); dismissal affirmed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must resolve jurisdiction before merits; no 'hypothetical jurisdiction')
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three-part Article III standing test)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government-speech doctrine)
- Lewis v. Governor of Ala., 944 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc reiteration of standing principles)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (plaintiff/organization must show members personally affected)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (concerned bystanders cannot confer standing)