Samantha Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville and Bush-Quayle '92 Committee, Inc.

diffеrentiation physical between mental and justified ailments in the health insur- SISTRUNK, Samantha Plaintiff- context, ance but there no similar basis for Appellant, long-term disability distinction realm coverage. because the nature of the Alternatively, argue, Defendants the Disabili- CITY OF STRONGSVILLE and Bush- protect ties Act does not against differentia- Quayle Committee, Inc., ’92 groups tion between different of disabled Defendants-Appellees.

persons, only against against discrimination No. 95-3067. the disabled versus the non-disabled. Seher- ing points out that III “Title is not intended Appeals, United States Court of govern any or employ- terms сonditions of Sixth Circuit. by providers ment accommodations potential places employment; employ- Argued March 1996. practices ment governed by are I of this title Decided Oct. S.Rep. legislation.” supra, No. at 58. Rehearing Suggestion Rehearing Thus, based on our affirmance of Plaintiff’s claim, En Banc I Denied Jan. Title 1997.* Schering it is not clear whether proper remains defendant to remaining

claim in this suit. These ripe issues are now litigation in the court below. note, however,

We that it is not the

role of the courts to write policies. insurance clearly places significant

Title IV amount of

discretion in the compa hands of insurance policies

nies to write that are “consistent state law.” Just

held that the administrator of an ERISA

plan given who has been discretion to inter

pret plan may any way do so in that is light

rational in plan’s provisions, Con

gress clearly intendеd similar deference to industry Thus,

the insurance in this area. above, practices, noted including insurance industry’s justification insurance for its distinction between physical mental and dis

abilities, are protected therefore to the ex they

tent are in accord with sound actuarial

principles, reasonably anticipated experience

and bona fide risk classification. See Fire Bruch, stone ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍Tire and Rubber Co. v. 948, 956-57, 103 L.Ed.2d

The District Court’s dismissal Plaintiffs

Title III Disabilities Act claim is RE-

VERSED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings

further opin- consistent with this

ion.

*Judge Spiegel grant rehearing would for the rea- sons stated in his dissent. (ar- Hooker, Daniel Warren J. R.

David briefed), Costigan, A. Elizabeth gued and (briefed), Thompson, M. Clessuras Nicolle OH, Cleveland, for Plaintiff- Flory, Hiñe & Appellant. Mazanec, McLandrich, Raskin & T.

John Cleveland, OH, briefed), Ryder (argued and Strongsville. City of Defendant-Appellee for Burchfield, Burling Bobby Covington R. DC, briefed), Pat- Washington, (argued and Sharp, Fulton & Foy, Gallagher, rick M. Cleveland, OH, Defendаnt-Ap- Norman, Committee, Inc. Bush-Quayle ’92 pellee Jr., Aluminum Alcan Cowger, R. Alfred OH, (briefed), Mayfield Heights, Wil- Corp. Union Saks, Civil Liberties liam M. American OH, Cleveland, (briefed), Foundation of Ohio Schwitzgebel and Paul curiae H. for amici Delong. E. James Gotherman, Douglas C. Malcolm E. John Columbus, OH, curiae (briefed), for amicus .League. Municipal Ohio RYAN, Circuit NELSON Before: SPIEGEL, Judge.** District Judges; RYAN, J., opinion delivered NELSON, J., joined. court, in which 200-203), SPIEGEL, delivered D.J. (pp. opinion. dissenting separate RYAN, Judge. Circuit appeals the Sistrunk Samantha Plaintiff action under judgment for defendants law, challenging § and Ohio 42 U.S.C. speech oppos- of all exclusion the dеfendants’ reelection Bush’s ing then-President property. held a political Strongsville, City of argues that Plaintiff ** designation. sitting by Spiegel, United States Arthur Honorable S. Ohio, District of Judge for the Southern District Ohio, violated her rights by per- free the Commons is a

mitting forum, ’92 Committee to that it is located the center exclude members of the city, from a tradi- it was city’s dedicated forum based on the content founder to inhabitants of Plaintiff further exclusive area, use as a common and the committee acted under color of state that for years the last 165 law “countless or as a state actor plaintiff when it denied gatherings and festivals have been held on Strongsville access to the Commons, Commons. the including community art fairs and events, amusement and entertainment as We conclude that city the neither nor the ” well Strongsville’s as ‘Community Day.’ committee plaintiff’s violated constitutional ordinance, Pursuant city to a mayor’s the she, rights even was excluded from the office has authority the regulate the use of Commons because of the content of her Commons; the any person or organization speech. Because we plaintiff find that wishing to use Commons apply must has not alleged a violation of her free mayor’s permission. officefor rights, we have no occasion to address prohibited committee rally partici- whether her exclusion from the Commons pants carrying displaying or signs or was state action. We therefore affirm the buttons carried messages critical of district court’s dismissal for failure to state a Bush; however, President it partici- allowed claim. pants display approved signs and buttons messages carried supporting either I. President or support. neutral to his Plain- tiff, high a time, school student at that ob- Strongsville Republican Organization tained a rally ticket to the transport- was permit obtained city from the to use certain ed to rally provided on a bus municipal property, including Strongs- system. public school Plaintiff Commons, ville for a rally to be held wore several buttons on jacket her pic- —a on October from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 classmate, ture of a drug-free red ribbon p.m. According to complaint, pin, and a political button endorsing Bill Strongsville Republican Organization either Clinton for President. stopped Plaintiff was permitted joined or with ’92 rally outside the entrance a committee Committee use the Commons to hold a official who told her that she could carry rally for then-President Bush. Walter display Bill Clinton button inside the Ehmfelt, city’s mayor, permit issued the rally. The official did object applicant organization for the nominal plaintiff other buttons wore. Plaintiff fee of permit provided $1. per- that the relinquished her Bill Clinton button to the organization mittee would be entitled to use committee official before entering designated rent and/or offices and chambers of the municipal building grounds, and its When confronted questions after the including the gazebo, Commons about the committee’s sup- activities in of reсeiving and welcoming pressing opposing speech, Strongsville’s cMef President Bush celebrating police Ms visit to quoted was saying that the com- city. permit specifically provided mittee was entitled to exclude ticket holders that the use of the grounds facilities and was from the rally on the basis of speech content limited to the organization members of the property because the had been leased for the and their permit invitees. The provided also day by the committee. Plaintiff claims that that the committee was authorized to further response this city indicates that had restrict premises the use of the by category knowledge beforehand of the in- committee’s of invitation. To rally, attend the members tention to exclude from the politi- Commons required were to obtain admis- cal expression that supportive was not tickets, sion wMch were city available at hall President Bush and that the city adopted had charge free of come, on a first first policy served beforehand that depriva- caused the basis. tion of free speech rights in forum. The district court § action. 42 U.S.C. relation- symbiotic . that a failed to state had plaintiff com- found also between ship existed because constitution activities under the Ohio claim committee’s mittee, such that the Ohio con those her under provided protections treated can holding the protec proposition, farther than support- of no extended stitution itself. following allegations: The First Amend under the her made tions accorded Ehrnfelt, helped official, Mayor States Constitution. city’s ment to United chief indicated rally. The tickets organize the event, sponsor awas Mayor Ehrnfelt II. and the F. Ehrnfelt “Mayor stating: Walter Determining district and hear you to Party invite see Republican a ques claim is Oakridge properly dismissed the court and ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍George Bush President See review. Wednesday, subject to de>novo law tion of Strongsville Commons Boys at (6th 1353, Blalock, 1356 of the 983 F.2d bottom 28, At the 1992.” Mertik October review, Cir.1993). we conducting this printed statement: the appeared tickets liberally in the plain Com- complaint Election Bush-Quayle ’92 the by “construe “paid for all accept as true factual litera- mittee, Among the other favor and tiffs Inc.” city hall there public at inferences permissible the and allegations to ture disseminated Pontiac, “Mayor 41 F.3d stating: City Wal- in.” an advertisement Gazette v. was of Cir.1994). see (6th come and to you A dismiss to motion Ehrnfelt invites 1064 ter F. 12(b)(6) Bush,” below under Fed.R.Civ.P. granted ... President be media the be “Send relief could stated: that no “only if it is the clear advertisement city The will win!!!” that could we of set facts message granted under rally the to attend Hi encouraged allegations.” citizens the openly consistent proved to 69, 73, 104 of tickets distribution the 467 King Spalding, U.S. and facilitated shon v. to be distribut- allowing tickets 2229, 2232, the L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Officials Strongsville Hall. from ed the applied to First Amendment himself, actually mayor including the city, the Amendment through Fourteenth states mayor pres- was rally. The in the part took make no “shall that the provides Bush President on which gazebo on ent or speech, abridging the freedom law ... endorsed publicly who and celebrities people right of the press; or of the during the candidacy were seated President’s assemble, petition and peaceably displayed prominently rally. A banner was grievances.” a redress for Government “Strongsville Trusts declaring gazebo on I. amend. Const. Strongsville George Bush.” to attend encouraged local students schools observes, we Although, as dissent option by offering students rally issues constitutional ordinarily decidе do not regularly their instead of attending rally on non-constitution be resolved can a case classes, students by providing and scheduled two for appropriate, it is we think grounds, al city rally on to the transportation with free directly to proceed reasons, in this ease Strongsville Additionally, the school buses. 1) as the dissent issue: the First performed at marching band High School question the state correctly suggests, pro- city provided police Finally, the rally. developed” on “sufficiently been has not for the municipal services tection develop 2) below; to remand record presented issue incompletely anof ment complaint found that district court basis finding a non-constitutional hope of city either the against a claim on, to state failed we when deciding case later this city’s involve- because the or the committee constitu clearly framed presently confront largely passive rally was impru ment be an seem question, would actions. committee’s wholly diverse from judicial resources. of time dent waste concluded therefore court The district city violated argues that at- was not private conduct challenged permitting rights by frеe of a her purposes for the to the state tributable committee to exclude Fund, members of Inc., & Educ. 473 U.S. from Commons on the based L.Ed.2d 567 (quot content of their ing We assume for Perry Educ. Perry Ass’n v. Local Edu Ass’n, of addressing argument cators’ plaintiff (1983)). sufficient facts to establish at this preliminary stage of the case law cited may prohibit the city that the did authorize the committee to City denying any from access exclude members of sought who expressive Commons for activity and express opposition reeleetion of Presi- granting denying permits based on dent Bush. Plaintiff city the content of an speech, applicant’s but it could not constitutionally authorize a prohibit does city from issuing per- entity to admit or exclude ticket holders from groups mits to seeking to make exclusive use based on the content expressive Commons for activity dur- speech. More specifically, plaintiff argues ing period fact, a limited time. a recent 1) did not convert the Commons Supreme Court suggests case that the 2) status, nonpublie the city could not may not constitutionally require permittee convert the nonpublic status, Commons to organization to speakers include discordant 3) and the viewpoint-based restriction im- expressive in its activity. posed speech on her would be unconstitution- Hurley Gay, Irish-American Lesbi al even a non-public forum. — an Boston, & Bisexual Group U.S. Plaintiff Supreme claims prece- that Court -, 2338, 115 S.Ct. (1995), 132 L.Ed.2d 487 dent establishes that municipal government a the Court held that the state could not re does power not have the to convert a tradi- quire private organized citizens parade who a public forum nonpublic into property through public among streets to include to forbid access to property expres- that marchers a group imparting message a sive purposes. heavily Plaintiff relies on the organizers did convey. not wish to Id. at fact Supreme that the Court struck down a -, 115 S.Ct. at Hurley 2340-41. federal statute that attempted to restrict ex- does not control because, the case before us pressive activity in front of Supreme (1) in Hurley, only parade council, not Court building by converting sidewalk, a a interposing presented group, the Su public forum, traditional nonpublic into gov- preme Court with a First claim, ernment property from which speech- could and the interposing group abandoned its prohibited be entirely. United States v. argument that the council’s conduct was not Grace, 103 S.Ct. 75 purely private but had character state L.Ed.2d 736 This statute was ruled However, action. similarity between the unconstitutional on the basis “Congress that facts in Hurley and the present facts may ... not ipse its destroy own dixit strongly case suggests that the city could not public forum status of parks streets and required have the committee to include in the which historically have public been forums.” rally persons imparting a message that the (internal Id. at 103 S.Ct. at 1708 quota- did not convey. committee wish to omitted). tion marks and citation the South Allied Bоston War Plaintiff that even if the Commons Veterans applied Council for and received a nonpublie forum, were a the city permit could not to hold a public on streets. A private a entity authorize group exclude mem- lesbian, of gay, and im- bisexual Irish bers of the on the (GLIB) basis of the migrants content joined together with other Supreme The Court supporters to form a marching unit within held that access to nonpublic a forum parade. that After council refused to limited only long “as admit GLIB to the upcoming parade, GLIB the restrictions are ‘reasonable and not [are] filed a аlleging suit violations of the state and an effort to suppress expression merely constitutions, be- federal of the and state’s cause oppose speaker’s officials law, accommodations prohibited dis- ” view.’ Cornelius v. NAACP Legal crimination in accommodations ac- Defense convey a in order to sought to assemble GLIB won orientation. of sexual count by use of media message pro-Bush lev court appellate court and state trial pro-Bush at- largely and speakers pro-Bush a ruled Court however, els, sought to expressly committee tendeеs. contin admit “to requirement the me- to “send in order attract attendance message not expressing gent win; would message” Bush that. First dia choosing violates own organizers’ “Strongsville Trusts message that convey the at -, S.Ct. at Id. Amendment.” George Bush.” pa determined Hurley Court any content-based has not point, a collective to make is intended rade process; application permit exclusion expression, form of is a thus ap- allege that she is, did not in that aas unit participation proposed GLIB’s for her to hold permission plied for Id. at expressive. equally paradе was in the Commons expressive own Su ---, at 2345-46. basis on the permission denied speech and was all “‘[s]ince held preme only Plaintiffs of her views. content say the what inherently choices involves partici- permitted that she was claim important ... one unsaid’ to leave what express- while speech committee’s pate in the of free principle manifestation require To views. ing her own discordant may also speak chooses one who is that ” signs buttons organizers include at -, say.’ Vhat decide would in the demonstration Bill Clinton Elec. &Gas (quoting at 2347 S.Ct. Pacific organizers sent message аlter California, Comm’n Utilities v. Public Co. observers, ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍if the hold- even media and did not of buttons wearers signs and ers of opinion)). (1986) (plurality pro-Bush the with interfere “may otherwise generally that noted Court parade could organizers of as the Just with which aof belief compel affirmance message in their to include compelled not be rule were Id. If disagrees.” speaker GLIB, the com- message of com the discordant freely could otherwise, government rally for organized the that mittee mes propound to “‘speakers pel “ ” in its to include compelled not be Bush ‘the could disagree,’ they sages with which in Clin- of confidence expression message an to affirm speakers require could ' ton. deny in the they that which in breath one ” (quot at -, at 2348 115 S.Ct. Id. next.’ pro-Clinton have held could plaintiff Co., at Elec. & ing Gas could have just Pacific day as GLIB rally another on 911). at 106 S.Ct. time. The another parade at own held its her button with stood could have appropriately City of rally ex- to up to the leading the sidewalk to en the committee to permission granted Clinton, just as GLIB support for press her activity the Commons in expressive in gage non- lined streets could have permis grantеd appropriately just as Boston to watch of members participating engage in council to to the veterans sion sidewalks convey from the parade A the streets. activity on expressive suggested It was message. their distinct extent to the same rally is expressing to parallel argument oral did here The committee is parade the sidewalks parade of the disapproval “stand merely to assemble not seek of rally as a member attending the would organiz parade around,” than the more any How- Commons. rally’s audience desti merely particular to reach sought ers a member in ever, participating recognized, Hurley Court As the nation. in marching to akin is more of audience the audience conveyed to point collective “ less visible of as one itself parade ‘if a parade that so essential had organizers theAs marchers. cover media no receives demonstration ” the streets use permission received happened.’ have may well not age, it convey sidewalks, to omitted). Boston, but (citation at -, 115 S.Ct. at organizers had message, so organizers Similarly, the permission received Commons, to use the but decision is erroneous. Accordingly, I re- adjacent public not the spectfully sidewalks. Those dissent. seeking admission to the area that was cov- First, the majority decides an issue that I by ered the permit area reason- was —which believe is not result, before the Court. As a ably necessary to organizers’ expressive majority unnecessarily resolves consti- activity and was restricted the use of the question tutional when this case was before organizers and their invitees —were effect the Court on the more question mundane seeking inclusion in expressive activity Second, statе action. I believe majority itself. For require the committee misapplied Supreme holding Court’s to admit all ticket-holding members of the Hurley Gay, Irish-American Lesbian

public seeking express a message would — Boston, Group Bisexual -, U.S. amount to a stating rule of law 132 L.Ed.2d 487 fact, majority contingent have protected turned the nar- individuals holding row Hurley with a message on its head in would have order right defeat Ms. participate in Sistrunk’s [the speech, First Amendment Committee’s] so claim. produced communication by the private organizers would be shaped all United general States protectеd those by the law who wished to ly a policy follows of avoiding unnecessary join in expressive with some demonstration adjudication of constitutional issues. United of their But own. this use of the State’s States v. Treasury National Employees Un power violates the fundamental pro- rule of —ion, -, -, U.S. 115 S.Ct. tection under Amendment, the First that a 1019, 130 (1995) (citing Ashwan speaker autonomy has the to choose the der v. Valley Tennessee Authority, 297 U.S. content his own message. 80 L.Ed. 688 — (Brandeis, J., concurring)). In Ash- at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2347. wander, Justice Brandéis identified numer Therefore, we conclude that plain- even if ous doctrines used the Court to avoid tiff has sufficient facts to establish adjudication needless of constitutional ques authorized the committee to tions including standing, ripe mootness and exclude members sought who ness. For appeal, this Justice express a message, discordant plaintiff has important Brandéis’ most admonition was not city plaintiffs violated that the “Court pass will not upon a constitu speech free rights; rather, plaintiff only question, although properly presented established permitted that the city the com- by record, present there is also some mittee to exercise its speech rights free ground upon which the case may bе autonomy over the content of its own mes- disposed Ashwander, of.” 347, 297 U.S. at sage. There has been no constitutional viola- 56 S.Ct. at (Brandeis, J., 483 concurring); see tion and therefore there can liability be no on also States, Burton v. United 283, 196 U.S. part or the committee. The 295, 25 S.Ct. (1905) 49 L.Ed. 482 district court properly dismissed this action. ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍(“It is not the habit of the Court to decide

questions of a constitutional nature unless III. absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.”). For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Court developed the absten- the district court’s dismissal for failure to tion doctrines in prevent order to рremature state a claim. and unnecessary decisions on federal consti- questions. tutional See Railroad Commis- SPIEGEL, District Judge, dissenting. sion Co., Texas v. Pullman Today, the majority concludes that 501-02, neither 643, 645-46, 61 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) nor the Bush- (requiring courts to withhold decision Quayle ’94 Committee violated Ms. Sistrunk’s on the unconstitutionality of state law until rights. constitutional I believe majority’s pending proceedings in state court can pro- required not have statutes). could suggest that the of state construction vide definitive rally persons in the to include is the committee judicial restraint stressed The Court did message that the committee рresents imparting a case when a important even more analysis incor- convey.” This is significance. political not wish social an issue First, un- the factual porters Pullman for several reasons. rect complaint “The enough to constitu- cases distinct a substantial of the two is context doubtedly tendered It investigation substantial. before blind deeper than It is more warrant tional issue. upon policy Hurley. Al- of social in area a sensitive adherence to conclusion touches not enter ought rally with courts lowing federal to attend Sistrunk Ms. is adjudication to its necessarily mean no alternative unless her button does Second, at 644. 61 S.Ct. open.” at in the participating is she Hurley appears in to have limited instance, majority to follow fails In this . inap- completely and is holding to its context issue guidance The Supreme Court’s majori- Finally, the in situation. plicable this jurisdictional question strictly the appeal is Supreme Court’s and ty ignores the question amounts in the conduct examining methodology for First Circuit’s any 42 in A threshold hurdle state action. involving public fora. claims Amendment showing that is a § U.S.C. per from conduct resulted infringement marchers, did gay Ms. Sistrunk Unlike the “color, See law.” of stаte under .the formed upon the Committee’s to intrude not seek U.S. at -, at 115 S.Ct. - proceedings. participating Kraemer, Shelley v. (quoting Instead, rally, and wished attend she 92 L.Ed. 1161 time, support for express her at the same equal speech and (“[T]he of free guarantees by wearing a button. Mr. Clinton only against encroachment guard protection desire majority equates .Sistrunk’s Ms. no shield ‘erec[t] by the Rally attend the conduct’-”)). Ac merely private against Day Patrick’s in the St. to march gay’s wish ruling based a First cordingly, being a majority concludes Parade. The unnecessary, but only Hurley is upon rally’s is akin audience member not have does since Ms. Sistrunk premature disagree. A I parade. marching in the action. cannot show claim if she partici- an active in the is marcher of Hur Second, majority’s application event, attendance while one in pant Bi Gay, Lesbian ley v. Irish-American merely spectator. rally is — U.S.-, Boston, Group sexual equivalent is marching in a actuality, (1995), to this are both involved at a since speaking gay, Hurley, plaintiffs, improper. case message. conveying Irish-Americans, sought bisexual lesbian pa- hand, along a folks On by a sponsored included to be during a square public or in á rade route argued The veterans organization. veterans com- The audience the audience. are public Massachusetts’ application of that hear can see and present who prises those compel participation law accommodations fact, pointless events are In both the event.1 parade violated gays in their by the an without audience. Supreme speech. The freedom of veterans’ accommo public agreed found Ms. Sistrunk majority counters The applied as to be unconstitutional law dations button on with her stood “could have in this context. express up to leading sidewalk Clinton....” [President] support her Hurley did not Although recognizes it outside to stand Forcing an individual part claim on a First Amendment involve like, gay forbidding the square would facts majority finds plaintiffs, a street standing on from Irish-Americans “strongly analogous toas cases so the two edi- Dictionary, unabridged House public The Random spectators "group at is a 1. Audience event; collectively, in at- tion or viewers listeners concert, theater, like...." or the at a tendance along corner post route. It is doubtful and should have been fоllowed in this Supreme Court would find such instance. acceptable. action In Bishop, plaintiffs attempted to at political tend a rally being held on distinctions, addition to the factual Fountain Hur Square in ley legal They downtown ’s Cincinnati. car conclusions are also inapplicable ried signs Reagan critical of situation. Administra the Court held policies, tion or its security but First Amendment forbids a confiscated State from signs allowing before “compel[ling] them to enter affirmance of a belief with — square. The district court speaker which the disagrees.” Hurley, dismissed all finding at -, City claims permit аt question 2347. The allowed the defendants to take City here is not whatever action require they whether can desired with by Square. Fountain Committee, Bishop v. but rather, Reagan-Bush Committee, granting private entity F.Supp. ’84 (S.D.Ohio 1986). power to This Court exclude citizens from a traditional reversed. proper inquiry forum' with a upon starts determina viewpoint based tion of type amounts to forum involved. Bishop, state action. *3,1987 at U.S.App. WL at In Hurley, plaintiffs fought exclusion Then, *6. the trial court must determine if from Day the St. Patrick’s Parade a viola- power has the convert it into a tion of the Massachusetts aсcommoda- private *3, forum. Id. 1987 WL They, however, tions law. argue failed to U.S.App. so, at *9. If the court that, their rights First Amendment were vio- questions must address the of state action lated By contrast, the exclusion. Ms. qualified immunity. Finally, Sistrunk that the First Amendment court must decide employed limitations precludes the City and the Committee comport time, place reasonable or man excluding her irom traditional forum regulations. ner upon viewpoint (i.e., based her wearing a question fundamental button). is how much The balance struck in Hur- control over a traditional public forum ley is between a state law and the First municipality cede to a group. Amendment. Supreme Court had no expressed Court has a strong difficulty de finding that the pub- Massachusetts protect sire as an important fora lic yield accommodations law must safeguard of the First Amendment. e.g., See First rights of the Boston Veter- Perry, (“In 460 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at 954 ans. places by long govern tradition or The conflict between First Amendment ment fiat have assembly been devoted rights individuals, however, two is a much debate, rights of the State to limit ex e different and mor difficult inquiry. The pressive activity sharply are circum Court did not address this Hurley. issue in scribed.”); Schwitzgebel City Strongs hand, On the other uрheld the Court has only ville, (N.D.Ohio F.Supp. 1208, 1216 1995) viewpoint-based regula restrictions when the (“In essence, public fora serve as bulwarks narrowly tion is promote tailored a com protecting right persons, of all especially pelling state Perry interest. Education those who have no access to other outlet, v. Perry Ass’n, Ass’n Local Educators’ speak freely. their minds Courts must 74 L.Ed.2d allow the to overcome the protecting bastions important such right an nearly situation, identical factual through simple so an exercise the granting Court developed methodology permit.”). confront оf a The Sixth Circuit noted that ing the presented difficult issues here. Bish possibility there is “the the nature of op Reagan-Bush ’84, v. 35970, 1987 1987 WL certain altered, forums cannot be ei U.S.App. (unpublished) (6th LEXIS 6669 Cir. by government ther private fiat or will.” 22,1987). May Although unpub this case Bishop, *2, 1987 1987 WL U.S.App. lished, I provides believe helpful guide- it at *6. court did ease, district In this power had the

determine forum into a forum ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍convert Com Compare permit.

through the use Hodel, v. Non-Violence munity Creative (D.D.C.1985) (allowing gov F.Supp. 528 fo otherwise an to convert

ernment use through forum non-public into a

rum v. Irish Subcommittee permit) aof Island, Commission, 646 Heritage

Rhode (D.R.I.1986) (holding govern

F.Supp. 347 change the essence cannot

ment

forum). Instead, court deter district rec existed. no

mined developed on sufficiently has not been ord re Accordingly, I would question.

either factu ease for further and remand this

verse issues. of these development

al al., WILSON-JONES, et M.

Robin

Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-

Appellants, CAVINESS, al., Theophilus et

Rev. E.

Defendants-Appellants/Cross-

Appellees. 95-3086, 95-3143.

Nos. Appeals,

United States Circuit.

Sixth

Argued Aug. 30, 1996. Oct.

Decided.

Case Details

Case Name: Samantha Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville and Bush-Quayle '92 Committee, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 2, 1997

Citation: 99 F.3d 194

Docket Number: 95-3067

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.