Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 857

Women’s Health Link sought a preliminary injunction mandating Citilink to carry its public service advertisement on Fort Wayne buses.
Citilink rejected the ad under a viewpoint-neutral policy banning noncommercial PSAs that express or advocate political, religious, or moral positions.
Plaintiff argues Citilink applied its rules inconsistently and violated First Amendment rights and due process/equal protection.
Key facts include two ad submissions by Women’s Health Link (via Becky Rogness and later Julie Perkins) and Citilink’s concern about the advertiser’s identity and the life-affirming purpose.
Citilink maintains the policy targets only certain controversial categories and is applied neutrally; the record shows limited instances of rejected ads, including two pro-life ones.
The court denies both the preliminary injunction and Citilink’s motion to dismiss, finding insufficient likelihood of success on the merits at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ad policy is a valid, viewpoint-neutral nonpublic-forum restriction	Women’s Health Link argues policy is not viewpoint-neutral.	Citilink contends policy is viewpoint-neutral in a nonpublic forum.	Policy is viewpoint-neutral; no designated public forum found.
Whether Women’s Health Link has standing to challenge the policy	WHL demonstrated injury and causal link to Citilink’s actions.	WHL lacks final agency action without an appeal.	Court finds standing and denial of dismissal appropriate; case proceeds.
Whether the fee-free, nonfinal administrative denial warrants a preliminary injunction	Injury to First Amendment rights justifies injunction.	Need final decision; no final agency action yet.	Injury shown but no likelihood of success on merits; injunction denied.
Whether the policy is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under the Fourteenth Amendment	Policy could chill protected speech.	Terms are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.	Policy not substantively vague or overbroad; no likelihood of success on merits.
Whether the balance of harms supports a preliminary injunction	Harm from infringing First Amendment rights favors injunction.	Injunctive relief would burden a government-regulated system.	Harms favor WHL only if merits are shown; here harms do not overcome lack of merit.

Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 735 F.3d 735 (7th Cir.2013) (strong merits showing lowers required harm showing for injunction)
Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir.2002) (burden on plaintiff to show likelihood of success and injuries)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (plaintiff bears burden to persuade court on preliminary injunction)
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1985) (forum determination and access in context of public forums)
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 95 (U.S. 2001) (nonpublic vs. designated forum and viewpoint neutrality standards)
Planned Parenthood Ass’n v. Chicago Transit Authority, 767 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir.1985) (existing permissive advertising environment affects forum analysis)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1974) (nonpublic forum standard for government restrictions)
Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Chicago Dept. of Aviation, 45 F.3d 1144 (7th Cir.1995) (forum nature governs review standard)
Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.2004) (illustrates expressive activity permissible in advertisements)