14 F.4th 879
8th Cir.2021Background
- Students for a Conservative Voice (SCV), YAF, and Ben Shapiro sought to host Shapiro at the University of Minnesota; SCV requested the centrally located Mayo Auditorium but University officials, citing security concerns, approved a smaller/remote venue (North Star Ballroom in St. Paul).
- University staff discussed and suggested applying a campus “Large Scale Event Process” (LSEP), but the record shows the LSEP committee likely never met, SCV never completed the LSEP proposal, and the process was not consistently mandatory in practice.
- The Shapiro event occurred Feb. 26, 2018 with about 450 attendees; protests occurred but the speech proceeded; the University absorbed roughly $15,000 in security costs.
- SCV, YAF, and Shapiro sued University officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging facial and as-applied First and Fourteenth Amendment violations rooted in the LSEP and related “speech suppression” practices; district court dismissed or granted summary judgment on multiple claims.
- While litigation proceeded, the University replaced the LSEP with a more detailed, campus‑wide “Major Events” policy (effective Mar. 27, 2020); the panel majority held SCV’s facial challenges moot and found Appellants lacked standing for their as-applied claim because the LSEP was not shown to have been applied to them.
- The court vacated the district court’s orders as to those claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice; Judge Grasz concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the complaint (read as a whole) and record raised triable First Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of facial challenge to LSEP | LSEP is facially vague and allows viewpoint discrimination; injunctive/declaratory relief remains appropriate | University replaced LSEP with a more detailed Major Events policy, so relief as to LSEP would be ineffective | Facial challenges to LSEP are moot because the new Major Events policy is materially different and reenactment of LSEP is not virtually certain; no ruling on new policy’s constitutionality |
| Standing for as-applied First Amendment claim | Appellants contend officials applied the LSEP/practices to move event to St. Paul and limit attendance (causal injury) | Record lacks evidence that LSEP was actually applied to SCV; decisions were made on independent security grounds tied to officials’ roles | No Article III standing at summary judgment stage: Appellants failed to show injury fairly traceable to application of the LSEP (causation) |
| Scope of claim — written LSEP vs. broader practices (dissent issue) | Complaint alleges a “Speech Suppression Policy” encompassing LSEP and associated practices; reads as challenging both written policy and related conduct | Majority construes claim as limited to LSEP and requires evidence that LSEP was applied; practices tied to LSEP cannot form independent as-applied claim absent pleading/amendment | Majority: claim limited to LSEP application; because LSEP was not applied, standing fails. Dissent: complaint, read as whole, plausibly alleges practices beyond LSEP and a triable First Amendment claim |
| Disposition/remedy | Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages | Defendants sought dismissal/summary judgment; district court granted summary judgment on as-applied claim and dismissed facial claims; appellate court reviewed mootness/standing | Appellate court vacated district orders as to moot/standing-deficient claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims without prejudice; did not resolve merits or constitutionality of new Major Events policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2005) (mootness and Article III case-or-controversy principles)
- Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, 697 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (repeal/amendment of law and "capable of repetition yet evading review" analysis)
- Teague v. Cooper, 720 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2013) (rare circumstances where repealed policy may still be challengeable)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires injury fairly traceable to challenged conduct)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and summary‑stage evidentiary requirement)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (as-applied challenge principles)
- Bernbeck v. Gale, 829 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 2016) (court’s sua sponte duty to scrutinize standing)