engaging in protected religious speech on public sad walks located next to two city streets university boulevard and had very lame located in tuscaloosa alabama course the the one of the issues is where the public's eye walks are university sidewalks that trip whether they are university sidewalks that are or the public's permitted to be on but not to assemble inexpressive activities without reasonable restrictions if you say public sidewalks public property you're kind of assuming away the issue well i think perhaps that's where it should be there's no counter evidence that there's a public easement for the sidewalks and if you have access to the sad logs then that would steam to resolve the issue but a sad from that there are certainly  cases that have dealt with sat walks or on the printer such as united states versus grace and others were really delved into the larger question areas whether it's public or private whether it's university own whether it's not and then he has is it a traditional public form and that where you get there where you get into the question really of notice and how does it appear how is it function and i think what the record has demonstrated here is that even that also is not use for special purpose in other words it's not used for purpose for the government as a proprietor as a inlet sad log leading to a university building or leading to a classroom or leading to a stadium rather it leads from tuscaloosa one part of tuscaloosa to another and also is physically indistinguishable from every other sad walk in the city of tuscaloosa if lands and emerges where of these other sad walks and so really in all these respects what the record demonstrates is the sidewalks or traditional public for take a look at the first part and that is the public thoroughfare aspect of the us these sidewalks  what we did we do that was that was the founding of the court that the those sad walks were inside the campus and so it's hard to imagine how they did we know who owned them do it in other words the city we don't know who own them sidelocks the there's nothing in the record that states in black and blade or and there's nothing to record that that that was a confined campus g s use a confined though this if this were in the district court the word was used part of the campus very if this was let's not use that word this was in the center of the campus  it would and we were applying blow to i really wouldn't matter whether the sidewalks were were own by the university or were public sidewalks would it i don't think so your honor i think i think the court would necessarily have to rule that their traditional public for there's no question about that is the these are sidewalks we didn't vote on whether we said instead physical characteristics of property along cannot dictate for our analysis we look to the traditional uses made of the property to governments intent inequality concerning that usage and the presence of any special characteristic that's exactly right your honor there's a huge difference between a blade or an and this course in  but there's a distinction it's drawn between a sad walk where you take to lead you to cut out for a class or you take to go to the football stadium there's a distinction between those sad walks and sad walks that flow along city streets that played born the court recognize that there was a physical distinction in a sense that he could tell the difference between the university saddle and and others because there was said the fellows physical characteristics of the property alone cannot dictate form analysis we look to the traditional uses made of the property of governments intently policy concerning the usage and any special characteristics i think that's true your honor but that does not mean that physical characteristics are not a factor because an inquest when they are i can be a factor but these sidewalks are used heavily if not primarily to get from one part of the university to the other not if they are the sidewalks they flow with a city street and they are all types of private businesses that i know what they're all types of  university buildings there but you don't use that sad walk to get to any university building fact that would lead you to no university building at all he would use it's got to russell hall now because you would actually have to stick there's another side walk that speak and here is the score sidewalks located at university boulevard and had very lane and a person has no notice that they have entered into the university of do they think the school social work the old fire hall that's all the heart of campus with us that's not the sidewalks and so you have decided to run through the heart of campus they take students from you've got russell hall that is right in front of this area and i know that one of the people here that day not the plaintiffs specifically had a ball horn out there in front and was using that and i would think that when you look at that case law that deals with the educational purpose then and those things having a policy to allow them to put limitations on someone using a bullhorn right in front of a college building that would  really has access and control there because what happened in the facts was is that when they were told to go this place and they said on that corner you're good at what they're told is you have to look out for noise last there so you have to look out for city noise law so then that's yeah if he violated city noise laws through an amplified speaker or otherwise certainly they would come into play but this just because it borders university property doesn't mean that the university has a right to control the speech there and i the read brief page seven states that mr coaster held up a banner and handed out literature to students meanwhile his associates stood along the west west edge of the sidewalk and address the students with a loudspeaker do you agree those facts are correct i think those facts are correct as far as say what happens when he first went in there he was at this place across from the quad and that's that's where he was and that's when that happened but then he was told hey listen this is university property you can speak here you go to that intersection of university boulevard and had barry lane that's and that's what this this case is about that in my favor says and continued the same conduct and i think the facts really show that what he can what he did that at the same at the other end of section was as he handed out literature and talked to people and that's where they said hey we're going to let you do that here because she'll have a permit to do it on some concerns there particularly when it comes to the ten day advance notice is a ten day business day advanced as for someone who's just speaking or handed out literature that is not it seems to be an unreasonable  and also bar as a sponsorship itself it seems to include the point considerations so those arguments were made but the primary argument is that this is a traditional public form and in those and these type are sure since cannot stand traditional public because dislocation is a sidewalk in the heart of campus surrounded by science buildings that all notify you you're in the heart of campus and is thus a limited public forum  keester has affectively conceded that the policy was reasonable and you point neutral if he hadn't conceded that let me tell you what tentatively speaking out thank you lose i don't think there's any support in art and common sense basis for saying that your ten university working days requirement is a reason intended use thirteen or fourteen days later that is true you want to but there is an exception there if if it's safe at an event that does not require multiple campus involvement then we  nature of what's going to happen there may need to be all sorts of preparations including police preparations they declared a state of emergency for speaker one single speaker coming on campus in order to protect the safety of the students that requires time to be done in the courts to recognize that universities are not as well suited as municipalities in doing this on a short timeframe they also have limited resources to do it so i think here having the ten days is reasonable if it's required to bring in multiple aspects of campus but if it's not then we say we'll do it in three days when there is a three day exception in the actual text of the policy it is i get the exact quote for you but what it says your honor is that if it does not require our multiple departments of campus then we will do it in as little as three days i'll get the exact appendix quote for you i wouldn't thought you would also said well not that it's material but that were ten university working days prior to intended use just applause where there's amplification equipment no your honor that would that would apply on any sponsored outside speaker now where does not apply is it wouldn't apply if if there was some sort of exception where there's a reason in the news of something that requires something timely they'll do it is little is twenty four hours i was reading page seven of eleven it says applications under section one two one three or one four one t if the event does not involve factors that require multiple university departments approvals approval might be given as few as three days may be yes you're out doesn't mean it has to be and that's the approval not to submission the applications under two three or four must be submitted no later than ten university working days failure to make timely submission may result in denial so the guy has to submit his application is many as thirteen or fourteen days if he does it off rot i'm sorry if he wants to do it ten university working days from  respectfully disagree i think if you read the policy what it's saying is a day for a foreigner to notice but if these other factors are in place including not requiring multiple departments but also for the you of something that happens spontaneously that requires twenty only twenty four hour notice that they'll do it quicker they would do it quicker you understand they would do it quicker and how soon you have to submit your application are two different things absolutely are ok where is the exception to you got to do it no later than ten university working days before the intended use where's the exception to that i think in addition to the three days where they say they will may do it in three days now it doesn't say you may do it in his few is three days but it says they may respond to it yes you are so it's these are combined you've got to do it no later than ten university working days and then they may respond in three days in have how i read that is we request you apply to in days but if this three day exception would be a political will do in three a so in your example if you applied on a friday instead of waiting t weeks to live that that friday we would do it the following monday because it's in three days we're having a communication problem i thought us change the way i read the policy if they don't plot to do it in seven university working days you university may say we reject your application because it was not submitted in ten university working days but over the intended use and if you do that in three days one day thirty minutes or whatever you're still in forcing that ten university working days prior application rule and i'm suggesting to you that on reason i did today so i make two points on that one i mean the policy be given in as few as three days you would agree with me that disapproval might be given as well yes you're absolutely right and one stated grounds for denial of the request is it wasn't submitted far enough in advance it doesn't matter happ wicklow you get back to them and did not that if it's unreasonable to require that it be submitted up to fourteen calendar days in advance thirteen and fourteen then it's unreasonable that it's worth two points there i think with that and that was how i read the policy though is there are these exceptions where particularly the twenty four hour for something that's timely in the news that what that what the policy is saying is we won't make you wait the ten days for that we'll do it as quickly as twenty four hours but let me also move poses not timely in case he just wants to talk about the good news from the bop should i guess that is reasonableness of it though i do think that is an important issue and i do think that university campuses are very different in terms of how we are able to respond to potentially  dramatic vents and i think the news particularly shows how that time is necessary if you look at what's happened at the university of virginia university of florida at albany university those do require a great deal of time and effort to mobilize police to mobilize protection to close buildings to arrange for detours of traffic all those things take a large amount of thirteen or fourteen business yes your honor if you calendar day sorry sure if you're having to declare a state of emergency to protect the safety of the students i do think you know football games aren't laden transfer for hurricanes and less than ten university working days absolutely on it but planning for football games typically takes far more than fourteen working days when you're playing that you plan for that if you move on to another campus macaws a threat of a hurricane which has happened recently you've got a plan for all of that other campus yes it is done in fewer than thirteen or fourteen calendar day but i would say that the test is not whether it's the most recent whether it is reasonable and i would say given the circumstances so it may not be reasonable as there not being  i can see that a more reasonable way of tackling that would be if it does require this infrastructure and then it can be delayed for a period of seven days but if you are someone that just wants to do something simple then there is some procedure in place to allow that to go forward on a more timely basis because it is and i know we disagree about the reading of this but i can say as a matter of practice for the university that how they have implemented section five is that if these other factors are not required then they do it in three days that's how it has been implemented and then then they do it yes sure they do they require the applicant file it any more than three business days in advance if these complicating factors are not present no you are ok then you need to change your policy and saying that this is a facial attack on the policy is on the stand i understand that your honor what and i agree it could be written better but i do think if you read these together about section five and section six it does indicate that what they're doing there is agreeing to do it as in six you do it calendar days and it can be done within twenty four hours and i think if you read all those together it indicates that the university is willing to do it on a shorter timeframe than the ten business days the other issue i'd like to address is the fact that this has actually been conceded and you will not find this argument anywhere in the appellant's brief to this court and if you read the oral argument before the district co kalam basically said i don't have much of an argument on this the only potential thing i could argue would be the ten days but that's probably not going to get me there and so i think if you look at what's been done particularly to this court there's not a single argument any of these briefs that this policy was not viewpoint neutral and reasonable he has wagered all of his arguments that you would find this particular sad walk to be a traditional public forum and be then judge under that analysis he's not he's not made that argument that schools now have an argument about that the first part of the argument i mean a question and that  do you can see that there are businesses in this general area so let's say i think there's no r b s right there if someone wanted to protest in front of the r b s about them selling venice and i guess they're selling now when the university in the record is hard that's why it's hard to sort of do this visually but if you're there the arby's is not right in this corner it's more than a block down the street but you can see it from there and the arby's there i think that the difference there in there the honest answer is you know that that is the the sort of perimeter of campus those are private buildings that run on the south side there and further east from where we're talking about and if you get to that perimeter than i do think that's where the university of the grace type analysis would come into play because those are is far as i know the private businesses on private land with a different sidewalk for running in front of them they do not have all the same and issue that you have here at this saba up in the heart of campus so what if you did have a private business right here in the heart of campus and someone wanted to protest that private business private businesses that the university brings in to sell food to the students and in that situation where it's in the heart of campus absolutely the university would still control and the university's policies which still regulate those i think the only time where you would potentially run afoul of that is when you get to the very perimeter of campus and where there is a privately owned business at that point if it's a business at the university brings into the heart of campus then that would be a limited public forum under this court's and the university buildings russell hall pharaoh hall galley hall and the fourth one is a park that has been connected to the physical chapel for the campus so all four of those buildings at that intersection demonstrate that this is part of campus that the land under private business that you are is not in the record it is not real clear exactly who owns the land for instance where the armies in the nukes are ok thank you thank you mr kellerman three minutes if you would talk to us about why you haven't great crew and the reasonableness if it's a limited public sure that was a complete statement i think what i said was is that and as i feel here i believe our strongest argument is the four form status argument and that's what i was really urging to the court in as one of our to the court now but i do believe the statement of issues the second issue says may be the way i read assuming it is a traditional public fora may the ten day business advance notice  required that's the way i've read the second issue you know it's hard to quickly read page forty three but i assume this applies to assuming a traditional  the way it's presented is there it does not survive traditional public form which was the first argument but then also that it went to robin any that you're making an argument that it does not survive quick comment about parameter before my time's up and i appreciate the court's patience with me on this but i do think it's a very very important point if you take a look at the cases of mcglone versus bell which is six circuit to twenty twelve decision and also brits are versus faulkner fifth circuit decision two thousand involve the same type of situation with the streets doing the same thing basically what they're doing is they're going through and back university property and what those