U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle District (NCMD) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al v. PETERMAN et al Assigned to: JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES Referred to: MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE Alamance County Branch

represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-354-5066 Email: kgraunke@acluofnc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES BROCK PAYNE & MEECE, PA 3130 HOPE VALLEY RD. DURHAM, NC 27707 919-401-5913 Fax: 919-419-1018 Email: scott.holmes@bpm-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DANIEL K. SIEGEL ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA POB 28004 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919-307-9242 Email: dsiegel@acluofnc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH HADDIX LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW REGIONAL OFFICE POB 956 CARRBORO, NC 27510 919-521-8333

Plaintiff TAMARA O. KERSEY

Email: ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 BROAD ST., 18TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 646-885-8331 Email: esykes@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS REGIONAL OFFICE PO BOX 956 CARRBORO, NC 27510 919-261-3668 Email: mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 BROAD ST., 18TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 410-707-3733 Fax: 212-549-2564 Email: veidelman@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address)

Plaintiff COLLEEN TENAE TURNER

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN

Plaintiff TERENCE COLIN DODD
Plaintiff DESTINY CLARKE

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff NERISSA RIVERA

ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ADAM ROSE
Plaintiff ANNIE SIMPSON

represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address)

Plaintiff GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT
V.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by KRISTI L. GRAUNKE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIEL K. SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH HADDIX (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMERSON J. SYKES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARK DOROSIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
VERA EIDELMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant JERRY PETERMAN in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Graham, North Carolina
Defendant FRANKIE MANESS in his official capacity as Graham City Manager

represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Atrium at Blue Ridge 2501 Blue Ridge Road Suite 390 Raleigh, NC 27607 984-220-8750 Fax: 877-398-5240 Email: ajbiller@michaelbest.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP ATRIUM AT BLUE RIDGE 2501 BLUE RIDGE ROAD, SUITE 390 RALEIGH, NC 27607 984-220-8750 Fax: 877-398-5240 Email: apbanks@michaelbest.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON THOMAS FERGUSON & MULLINS, L .L. P. 119 E. MAIN ST. DURHAM, NC 27701 919-682-5648 Fax: 919-688-7251 Email: ferguson@tfblawyers.com TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant CHIP TURNER in his official capacity as Mayor ProTem of the City
Defendant MELODY WIGGINS in her official capacity as Graham City Council Member
Defendant JENNIFER TALLEY in her official capacity as Graham City Council Member

JAY HARDIN FERGUSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON

Defendant RICKY HALL in his official capacity as Graham City Council Member
Defendant JEFFREY PRICHARD in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department
Defendant TERRY S. JOHNSON in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM P. BANKS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAY HARDIN FERGUSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL FRAZIER HILL & FURY, RLLP POD 1559 GREENSBORO, NC 27402 336-378-7787 Fax: 336-274-7358 Email: whill@frazierlawnc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER

Defendant EDDIE BOSWELL in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner
Defendant STEVE CARTER in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner
Defendant BILL LASHLEY in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner
Defendant

ALBRIGHT ALAMANCE CO. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROSECUTORIAL DISTRICT 15A 124 W. ELM ST. GRAHAM, NC 27253 336-570-4046 Fax: 336-570-6788 Email: clyde.albright@alamancenc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMY SCOTT GALEY in her official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner
Defendant TIM SUTTON in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner
Defendant BRYAN HAGOOD in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager

represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILLIAM L. HILL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

07/02/2020 1

COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0418-2836947.), filed by Nerissa Rivera, Colleen Tenae Turner, Adam Rose, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, Annie Simpson, Terence Colin Dodd, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Destiny Clarke.(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/02/2020 2

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner. Response to Motion due by

07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020

7/23/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit NAACP- Barrett Brown,
# 2 Affidavit Tamara Kersey, # 3 Affidavit Colleen Tenae
Turner, # 4 Affidavit Terence Colin Dodd, # 5 Affidavit
Destiny Clarke, # 6 Affidavit Nerissa Rivera, # 7 Affidavit
Adam Rose, # 8 Affidavit Annie Simpson, # 9 Affidavit
Gregory Drumwright, # 10 Text of Proposed Order Temporary Restraining Order)(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
3 BRIEF re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney CURTIS SCOTT HOLMES on behalf of Plaintiffs Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner (HOLMES, CURTIS) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney VERA EIDELMAN on behalf of Plaintiffs Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner (EIDELMAN, VERA) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney DANIEL K. SIEGEL on behalf of Plaintiffs Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney MARK DOROSIN on behalf of Plaintiffs Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner (DOROSIN, MARK) (Main Document 7 replaced on 7/6/2020 with corrected PDF document) (Garland, Leah) (Entered: 07/03/2020)

07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/03/2020
07/05/2020
07/05/2020

Case Assigned to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES and MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD. (Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
Motions Submitted: 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
8 NOTICE by Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie
Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Supplemental Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Demand Letter)(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining set for 7/6/2020 11:00 AM in Greensboro Courtroom #3 before JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Defendants' Attorneys Ward, Coleman, and Albright notified via separate email.)(Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF PUBLIC ACCESS LINE re Hearing on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order set for 7/6/2020 11:00 AM: To facilitate public access to the hearing while avoiding the public health risks associated with being in the courthouse, the parties and public are invited to listen to the proceedings by calling (877) 336-1831 and the Access Code is 9793378, which will provide a live audio feed. Recording of the proceedings is prohibited. Any attorney who will address the Court on behalf of a party must appear in person. (Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
9 RESPONSE filed by Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS re 2
MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Annie Simpson, Adam Rose, Colleen Tenae Turner, Tamara O Kersey, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Nerissa Rivera, Destiny Clarke filed by RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. Replies due by 7/20/2020 (FERGUSON, JAY) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney JAY HARDIN FERGUSON on behalf of Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP

07/05/2020
07/05/2020 11

TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS (FERGUSON, JAY) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
Notice of Rescheduling In Person to Video Conference Hearing: In the interests of public and individual health, the July 6 hearing at 11 am will be by video conference via Zoom. Counsel will receive a link. The public access line to listen to the audio and to see the video of the proceedings will be available in Courtroom 3 of the Greensboro courthouse. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. (Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
Consent MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Destiny Clarke, Terence Colin Dodd, Gregory B. Drumwright, Tamara O Kersey, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, Annie Simpson, Colleen Tenae Turner. Response to Motion due by 7/27/2020 (Attachments: # 1

07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/06/2020
07/06/2020

Text of Proposed Order Consent Temporary Restraining Order)(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of cancellation of Hearing for Temporary Retraining Order. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
Motions Submitted: 11 Consent MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
12 ***FILED IN ERROR***NOTICE by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) Modified on 7/6/2020 to mark as Filed in Error and remove from view. Attorney instructed to properly re-file. (Garland, Leah) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney ELIZABETH MCLAUGHLIN HADDIX on behalf of Plaintiffs DESTINY CLARKE, TERENCE COLIN DODD, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, ADAM ROSE, ANNIE SIMPSON, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020 07/06/2020
07/06/2020
07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/06/2020 07/07/2020 07/10/2020

CASE REFERRED to Mediation pursuant to Local Rule 83.9b of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court. Please go to our website under Attorney Information for a list of mediators which must be served on all parties. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

14 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney EMERSON J. SYKES on behalf of Plaintiffs DESTINY CLARKE, TERENCE COLIN DODD, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, ADAM ROSE, ANNIE SIMPSON, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER (SYKES, EMERSON) (Main Document 14 replaced on 7/6/2020) (Hicks, Samantha). (Entered: 07/06/2020)

CONSENT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by

15

JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 7/6/2020; Plaintiffs' motion

for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED. The Graham

Defendants and Defendant Johnson are hereby RESTRAINED from

enforcing the Ordinance and the Ordinance shall have no force or

effect pending further orders of the Court. In the Court's discretion,

the bond requirement under Rule 65(c) is waived. This Order shall be

in effect for 14 days. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), Plaintiffs

shall provide Defendants with notice of this Order and Defendants

shall immediately provide Notice to their officers, attorneys, agents,

employees, and other persons who are in active concert or

participation with them. The Court will continue to review Plaintiffs'

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and a hearing on that motion

will be held by the undersigned on July 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. (Hicks,

Samantha) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

16 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant TERRY S. JOHNSON (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

17 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant BRYAN HAGOOD (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 7/20/2020 09:00 AM in Greensboro Courtroom #3 before JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

18 STANDARD ORDER for civil cases proceeding before JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

TEXT ORDER issued by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES: The Court anticipates resolving the pending motion for preliminary

07/11/2020 07/13/2020 07/13/2020 07/14/2020 07/14/2020 07/14/2020 07/15/2020

injunction on the record without an evidentiary hearing. Briefs and evidence in opposition are due by 5:00 p.m. July 15, 2020, and any reply brief and rebuttal evidence is due by noon on July 17, 2020. The hearing on July 20, 2020, will be conducted via video conference and counsel will receive a link. Public access method will be set by later order. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney ANTHONY JOSEPH BILLER on behalf of Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 07/11/2020)
20 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney JAY HARDIN FERGUSON and Robert M. Ward by on behalf of RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. Responses due by 8/3/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (FERGUSON, JAY) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
Motions Submitted: 20 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney JAY HARDIN FERGUSON and Robert M. Ward to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
21 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 7/14/2020; that the motion to withdraw, Doc. 20 , is GRANTED and Robert M. Ward and Jay H. Ferguson are relieved of any further responsibility in this case. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
Electronic Notice to all parties: Hearing regarding Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order 2 RESCHEDULED to 7/20/20 at 10:30 a.m., will be conducted via video conference and counsel will receive a link. Public access will be set out later. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
Reset Hearings: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2
Hearing RESET for 7/20/20 10:30 AM in Greensboro Courtroom #3 before JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF PUBLIC ACCESS LINE re Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction set for 7/20/20 at 10:30 AM: To facilitate public access to the hearing while avoiding the public health risks associated with being in the courthouse, the parties and public are invited to listen to the proceedings by calling (877) 336-1831 and the Access Code is 9793378, which will provide a live audio feed.

07/15/2020
07/15/2020
07/16/2020 07/16/2020 07/17/2020 07/17/2020

Recording of the proceedings is prohibited. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, TERENCE COLIN DODD, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, ADAM ROSE, DESTINY CLARKE, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, NERISSA RIVERA, ANNIE SIMPSON filed by TERRY S. JOHNSON. Replies due by 7/29/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Bryan Hagood, # 2 Exhibit B Declaration of Lt. Scott Gaither, # 3 Exhibit C - Repeal Ordinance )(HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
23 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Plaintiff NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED
PEOPLE re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, TERENCE COLIN DODD, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, ADAM ROSE, DESTINY CLARKE, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, NERISSA RIVERA, ANNIE SIMPSON (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
CASE REFERRED RE: 23 Withdrawal of Motion, to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
24 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 7/16/2020; The plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. Doc. 2 , without prejudice, with the defendants' consent. Good cause having been shown, the parties' motion, Doc. 23 , is GRANTED, and the hearing for July 20, 2020 is cancelled. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
25 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Summons FRANKIE MANESS, # 2 Summons - CHIP TURNER, # 3 Summons - MELODY WIGGINS, # 4 Summons - JENNIFER TALLEY, # 5 Summons - RICKY HALL, # 6 Summons - JEFFREY PRICHARD, # 7 Summons - SHERIFF TERRY S. JOHNSON, # 8 Summons - BRYAN HAGOOD) (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
26 Notice of Right to Consent. Counsel shall serve the attached form on all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Hicks, Samantha) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020 27

AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants, filed by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4

Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit

8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit

12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15,

07/20/2020 07/21/2020 07/21/2020 07/21/2020 07/21/2020

# 16 Exhibit 16) (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
28 Summons Issued as to EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, BILL LASHLEY, AMY SCOTT GALEY, TIM SUTTON. (Attachments: # 1 Summons - Steve Carter, # 2 Summons - Bill Lashley, # 3 Summons - Amy Scott Galey, # 4 Summons - Tim Sutton) (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
29 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, ANNIE SIMPSON. RICKY HALL waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
30 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. FRANKIE MANESS waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. JERRY PETERMAN waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
32 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA,

07/21/2020 07/21/2020 07/21/2020 07/22/2020 07/22/2020 07/22/2020

COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. JEFFREY PRICHARD waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
33 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. JENNIFER TALLEY waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
34 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. CHIP TURNER waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
35 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. MELODY WIGGINS waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. TERRY S. JOHNSON waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. BILL LASHLEY waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
38 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT,

07/22/2020
07/22/2020
07/22/2020
07/22/2020
07/23/2020 07/23/2020 07/23/2020 07/27/2020

ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. TIM SUTTON waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
39 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. EDDIE BOSWELL waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
40 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. STEVE CARTER waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. AMY SCOTT GALEY waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
42 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by ADAM ROSE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, ANNIE SIMPSON, TERENCE COLIN DODD, DESTINY CLARKE. BRYAN HAGOOD waiver sent on 7/17/2020, answer due 9/15/2020. (SIEGEL, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendants EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant BILL LASHLEY (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM L. HILL on behalf of Defendant TIM SUTTON (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney CLYDE BALLINGER ALBRIGHT on behalf of Defendants EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE

07/28/2020
07/28/2020 07/28/2020 07/29/2020 07/29/2020

CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD, RICKY HALL, TERRY S. JOHNSON, BILL LASHLEY, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, TIM SUTTON, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS (ALBRIGHT, CLYDE) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

47

Injunction by DESTINY CLARKE, TERENCE COLIN DODD,

GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, TAMARA O. KERSEY,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF

COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, ADAM ROSE, ANNIE

SIMPSON, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER. Response to Motion due

by 8/18/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- 2d Declaration of Terence

Colin Dodd, # 2 Exhibit 2- 2d Declaration of Barrett Brown,

# 3 Exhibit 3- 2d Declaration of Daniel Hosterman, # 4 Exhibit 4 - 2d

Declaration of Destiny Clarke, # 5 Exhibit 5- 2d Declaration of

Nerissa Rivera, # 6 Exhibit 6- 2d Declaration of Adam Rose,

# 7 Exhibit 7- 2d Declaration of C. Tenae Turner, # 8 Exhibit 8 - 2d

Declaration of Rev. Gregory Drumwright, # 9 Exhibit 9 - State of

Emergency Rescinded Post, # 10 Text of Proposed Order Temporary

Restraining Order) (GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

48 Plaintiffs' BRIEF re 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction . (GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

ELECTRONIC NOTICE to all parties of Hearing on Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction set for 7/30/2020 at 3:00 PM in Greensboro Courtroom #3 before JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Marsh, Keah) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

Motions Submitted: 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF PUBLIC ACCESS LINE re Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order set for 7/30/2020 at 3:00 PM: To facilitate public access to the hearing while avoiding the public health risks associated with being in the courthouse, the parties and public are invited to listen to the proceedings by calling (877) 336-1831 and the Access Code is 9793378, which will provide a live audio feed. Recording of the proceedings is prohibited. Any attorney who will address the Court on behalf of a party must appear in person. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/29/2020 07/29/2020

49 AMENDED DOCUMENT by EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD, RICKY HALL, TERRY S. JOHNSON, BILL LASHLEY, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, TIM SUTTON, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. Amendment to 46 Notice of Appearance, . (ALBRIGHT, CLYDE) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
50 NOTICE by DESTINY CLARKE, TERENCE COLIN DODD, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, TAMARA O. KERSEY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NERISSA RIVERA, ADAM ROSE, ANNIE

07/30/2020 07/30/2020 07/30/2020

SIMPSON, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER re 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 2Declaration of Barrett Brown with attached documents, # 2 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 3- Declaration of Daniel Hosterman with attachment)(GRAUNKE, KRISTI) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
51 DECLARATION of Frankie Maness by Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. (BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 07/30/2020)
52 DECLARATION of Kristi Cole by Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Social media posts)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

53

RESPONSE in Opposition re 47 Second MOTION for

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF

COLORED PEOPLE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, TERENCE COLIN

DODD, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, ADAM ROSE, DESTINY

CLARKE, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, NERISSA RIVERA,

ANNIE SIMPSON filed by RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS,

JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER

TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A City of Graham Emergency Declaration 7.10.20,

# 2 Exhibit B Email exchange E. Haddix & A. Biller 7.11.2020,

# 3 Exhibit C Email exchange E. Haddix. A Biller & W. Hill 7.13.20,

# 4 Exhibit D City of Graham July 10 Order rescinded)(BILLER,

ANTHONY) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020 54
07/30/2020
08/03/2020 55
08/04/2020 56
08/05/2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, TAMARA O. KERSEY, TERENCE COLIN DODD, COLLEEN TENAE TURNER, ADAM ROSE, DESTINY CLARKE, GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT, NERISSA RIVERA, ANNIE SIMPSON filed by EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD. Replies due by 8/13/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Timeline of Protests, # 2 Exhibit Google Earth- Courthouse, # 3 Exhibit Emails- Flagpole, # 4 Exhibit Photo Flagpoles, # 5 Exhibit Email- Discussions, # 6 Exhibit Letter 07-28-2020 Graunke Haddix, # 7 Exhibit Resc. of SoE, # 8 Exhibit Email - Video Links, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of David Sykes)(HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/30/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE CATHERINE C.
EAGLES: Motion Hearing held on 7/30/2020 re 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Attorneys Elizabeth Haddix, Mark Dorosin and Kristi Graunke present as counsel for plaintiffs. Attorney Anthony Biller present as counsel for defendant City of Graham. Attorneys Clyde Albright and Ben Pierce present as counsel for Alamance County. For the reasons stated in open court, Court DENIES Motion and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction as to the City of Graham defendants. The Court takes the matter under advisement as to County defendants. (Court Reporter Jane Calhoun.) (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 07/30/2020)
PLaintiffs' Reply BRIEF re 47 Second MOTION for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 54 Response in Opposition to Motion. (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
SURREPLY filed by Defendants EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD re 55
Brief filed by EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD. (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
TEXT ORDER issued by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES: The plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, but the Court concludes in its discretion that the balance of the equities and the public interest support denial of a

08/07/2020 08/12/2020

TRO, to give the defendants a short period of time to implement reasonable time, place, and manner rules for access to courthouse grounds, if they so choose. In the absence of immediate implementation of reasonable restrictions or other material change of circumstances, and subject to further briefing, the Court will likely grant the motion for a preliminary injunction, as a long-term prohibition on protests on courthouse grounds traditionally used as a public forum violates the First Amendment. Written order with specific findings and discussion to follow by the end of the week. The Court anticipates holding the record open for a week or so for any additional evidence or briefing; a specific schedule will be set in the forthcoming order. (Sanders, Marlene) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE

57

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 8/7/2020. Additional evidence or

briefing in connection with Plaintiff's motion for preliminary

injunction must be filed no later than August 12, 2020. Reply briefs

and evidence due no later than noon on August 14, 2020. In absence

of a change of circumstances or additional evidence undermining the

Court's factual findings herein, the Court contemplates granting the

motion for preliminary injunction against the County defendants.

(Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

58 SUPPLEMENT re 54 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, by Defendants EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT

08/12/2020 59

GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Historic Courthouse Facility Use Policy)(HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
Plaintiffs' Supplemental BRIEF re 57 Memorandum Opinion

and Order,, 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Second Kersey, # 2 Exhibit Kersey photo attachment, # 3 Exhibit Kersey photo attachment, # 4 Exhibit Kersey photo attachment, # 5 Exhibit Kersey photo attachment, # 6 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 7 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 8 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 9 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 10 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 11 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 12 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 13 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 14 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 15 Exhibit Kersey photo attach, # 16 Exhibit Kersey photo

attach, # 17 Exhibit 1914 news article, # 18 Affidavit Wells

08/14/2020

decl, # 19 Affidavit Chestek decl)(HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

60 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply BRIEF re 57

Memorandum

08/14/2020

Opinion and Order,, 47 Second MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction . (HADDIX, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
61 Alamance Defendants Supplemental Reply BRIEF re 57

08/14/2020
08/14/2020 08/25/2020 09/09/2020

Memorandum Opinion and Order,, 54 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, by Defendants EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD filed by EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD. (HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE

62

CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 8/14/2020; The County Defendants

imposed a total prohibition on protests in the traditional public forum

of outdoor areas surrounding the Alamance County Historic

Courthouse. The total prohibition is not a time, place, and manner

restriction, and however strong the governmental interests are, the

total prohibition is not narrowly tailored. The plaintiffs are entitled to

a preliminary injunction, which will issue by separate order. (Sheets,

Jamie) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION signed by JUDGE CATHERINE

63

C. EAGLES on 8/14/2020 as set out herein. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered:

08/14/2020)

64 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney ADAM P. BANKS on behalf of Defendants RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. (BANKS, ADAM) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

65 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 27

09/09/2020

Amended Complaint,, by RICKY HALL, FRANKIE MANESS, JERRY PETERMAN, JEFFREY PRICHARD, JENNIFER TALLEY, CHIP TURNER, MELODY WIGGINS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(BILLER, ANTHONY) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
ORDER granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer for RICKY HALL; FRANKIE MANESS; JERRY PETERMAN; JEFFREY PRICHARD; JENNIFER TALLEY; CHIP TURNER; and

09/10/2020 09/11/2020

MELODY WIGGINS. Answer due by 10/15/2020. Signed by John Brubaker, Clerk of Court, on 9/9/2020. (Brubaker, John) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
66 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 27
Amended Complaint,, by EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, AMY SCOTT GALEY, BRYAN HAGOOD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint)(HILL, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
ORDER granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer for EDDIE BOSWELL; STEVE CARTER; AMY SCOTT GALEY; BRYAN HAGOOD; TERRY S. JOHNSON; BILL LASHLEY; and TIM SUTTON. Answer due by 10/15/2020. Signed by John Brubaker, Clerk of Court, on 9/11/2020. (Brubaker, John) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Alamance County Branch; TAMARA O. KERSEY; COLLEEN TENAE TURNER; TERENCE COLIN DODD; DESTINY CLARKE; NERISSA RIVERA; ADAM ROSE; ANNIE SIMPSON; GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT
Plaintiffs, v.
JERRY PETERMAN, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Graham, North Carolina; FRANKIE MANESS, in his official capacity as Graham City Manager; CHIP TURNER, in his official capacity as Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Graham; MELODY WIGGINS, JENNIFER TALLEY, and RICKY HALL, in their official capacities as Graham City Council Members; JEFFREY PRICHARD, in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department; TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County; BRYAN HAGOOD, in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. ____________

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 39

NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action challenges Chapter 18, Art. VI, Sections 18-172, 18-174–181 of the City of Graham, North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (hereinafter, “the Ordinance”). The Ordinance requires any group of “two or more persons” gathering “for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto” and anyone at all “march[ing] . . . upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public places” to acquire a permit from the Graham police chief at least 24 hours in advance. The Ordinance gives the police chief complete discretion to limit gatherings to no more than six individuals and deny permit applications based on the chief’s judgment that the gathering might cause “a public disturbance,” and restricts all First Amendment-protected speech and assembly rights of minors absent discretionary permission by the police chief. 2. The Ordinance is an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable and content-based time, place and manner restrictions of speech in traditional public forums and violates due process because it is void for vagueness. 3. This action also challenges Defendants’ repeated denial of attempts by Plaintiffs and countless other speakers to protest in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham’s town square (hereinafter, “Historic Courthouse”). Protesting in that location is central to Plaintiffs’ message because they seek to protest the continued presence in the public square of the Confederate monument, which glorifies the legacy of
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 39

slavery, white supremacy, and racial oppression of African Americans in Alamance County. Plaintiffs have protested and intend to continue to protest institutionalized racism and police violence against Black individuals and communities.
4. This action also challenges Defendant Peterman’s repeated issuance, and Defendants Johnson, Maness and Prichard’s enforcement via Sheriff deputies and Graham police officers of the so-called “State of Emergency” Declarations (hereinafter “orders”). Defendant Peterman issued the first such order on May 31, 2020, prohibiting people from “gathering or demonstrating on any public street, sidewalk, or public property” between the hours of 9:00p.m. and 6:00am. The most recent order issued on June 27, 2020 and completely suspended individuals’ rights to free movement, assembly and speech.
5. None of Defendant Peterman’s orders were justified by any actual state of emergency or imminent threat to public health or safety. They were instead motivated by the Defendants’ desire to prevent individuals and groups, including Plaintiffs, from protesting the Confederate monument, institutionalized racism and police violence against Black individuals and communities in Graham’s town square.
6. In light of ongoing and imminent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, including the ongoing threat of criminal prosecution and civil enforcement, Plaintiffs respectfully request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure immediate cessation of enforcement of Graham’s unlawful permit and protest ordinance.
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 39

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights, and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 8. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Plaintiffs regularly engage in expressive and associative activities in this District. All Plaintiffs live and/or work in this District.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 10. Plaintiff Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) is the local affiliate of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a part of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization. The NAACP is dedicated to seeking justice for all persons and the elimination of race discrimination. The NAACP has organized and participated in public demonstrations in Graham and Alamance County, is planning future protests and demonstrations at the Confederate monument in Graham in the very near future, and its members regularly
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 39

participate in protests and other public assemblies in Graham, Alamance County and throughout the state.
11. Plaintiff NAACP is an expressive association that seeks to promote the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination. NAACP engages in expression, including protest, to advance the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination.
12. Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey is an adult Black female resident of Graham, North Carolina, Associate Pastor of Wayman Chapel AME in Graham, and a member of organizational Plaintiff NAACP, for which she serves as Community Coordination Committee Chairperson. Plaintiff Kersey has sought to exercise her right to protest against the Confederate monument, racialized policing and police violence in Graham, but has not done so because of Graham’s permit ordinance requirements and Defendants’ protest ban. As set forth further below in the Factual Allegations, Plaintiff Kersey intends to exercise her right to protest on July 4, 2020 and has also applied (but has received no response from Defendants) for a permit for a protest and prayer vigil to take place near the Confederate monument in Graham later in July.
13. Plaintiff Colleen Tenae Turner is a twenty-three-year-old Black female resident of North Carolina who has sought to organize protests in downtown Graham at the Historic Courthouse to support the Black Lives Matter movement and oppose the Confederate Monument situated there. Plaintiff Turner intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 39

14. Plaintiff Terence Colin Dodd is a white male resident of Hillsborough, North Carolina who sought to protest police brutality against Black people and communities of color and to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham on the morning of June 27, 2020. Plaintiff Dodd intends to continue his protesting in Graham in the near future.
15. Plaintiff Destiny Clarke is a twenty-seven year-old white female resident of Mebane, North Carolina who has sought to demonstrate in downtown Graham at the Historic Courthouse to protest white supremacy, support the Black Lives Matter movement, and oppose the Confederate Monument situated there. She intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
16. Plaintiff Annie Simpson is a twenty-two-year-old white female resident of Concord, North Carolina who has sought to organize protests in downtown Graham at the Alamance Courthouse to protest white supremacy, support the Black Lives Matter movement, and oppose the Confederate Monument situated there. Plaintiff Simpson intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
17. Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera is a fifty-nine-year-old Latina resident of Alamance County, North Carolina who has previously demonstrated in downtown Graham near the Alamance Courthouse to support racial equality and oppose the Confederate monument outside the Historic Courthouse. She seeks to engage in large and small group demonstrations there in the near future.
6
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 39

18. Plaintiff Adam Rose is a thirty-six-year-old white male resident of Graham North Carolina who applied for a permit to protest the statement published by the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office banning demonstrations. The City of Graham denied his permit application on June 27, 2020. Plaintiff Rose intends to continue his efforts to participate in protests in Graham in the near future.
19. Plaintiff Gregory B. Drumwright is a Black resident of North Carolina, Professor of Communications at High Point University, a community organizer and social justice activist, and Senior Minister of the Citadel Church in Greensboro. Plaintiff Drumwright has applied for a permit for a demonstration to protest racialized policing and police brutality against Black people and communities, and to protest the Confederate monument in Graham on July 11, 2020. He also plans to protest those same issues in Graham near the Historic Courthouse without seeking a permit on July 4, 2020.
Defendants 20. Defendant Jerry Peterman (“Defendant Peterman” or “the Mayor”) is sued in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Graham, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 21. Defendant Frankie Maness is sued in his official capacity as Graham City Manager, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 22. Defendant Chip Turner is sued in his official capacity as Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Graham, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
7
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 39

23. Defendant Melody Wiggins is sued in her official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
24. Defendant Jennifer Talley is sued in her official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
25. Defendant Ricky Hall is sued in his official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
26. Defendant Jeffrey Prichard (“Defendant Prichard” or “GPD”) is sued in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
27. Defendant Terry S. Johnson (“Defendant Johnson” or “the Sheriff”) is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
28. Defendant Bryan Hagood is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Confederate Monument at the Alamance Historic Courthouse in Downtown
Graham, NC
8
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 39

29. The Confederate Monument outside the Historic Courthouse was erected in 1914 as a result of a coordinated statewide effort of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (“UDC”) to place these monuments in public squares across the State.
30. Founded in 1894, the UDC organized and built Confederate Monuments, cared for Confederate veterans and widows, and promoted and published textbooks for use in schools across the South.
31. The UDC also advanced and supported a political white supremacy campaign which disenfranchised and terrorized Black people.
32. The UDC officially recognized the Ku Klux Klan for helping to restore southern home rule and white supremacy.
33. The UDC’s objective was to vindicate and glorify the Confederacy and to promote the “Lost Cause” mythology, a false historical narrative which downplayed the harm and significance of slavery and promoted a policy of racial segregation and white supremacy.
34. According to the inscription on the Confederate monument in Graham, it was “erected through the efforts of the Graham Chapter” of the UDC. The total cost for the monument was $2,100, plus an additional $305 for the mound and post, chain and curbing enclosure surrounding the monument. On January 5, 1914, the Alamance County Board of Commissioners appropriated $1,000 to contribute to the project.
35. Upon information and belief, the Graham Chapter of the UDC covered the majority of the costs for the project.
9
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 39

36. The monument consists of a statue of a Civil War infantryman, wearing a brimmed, floppy slouch hat and a butternut cloth uniform, standing at parade rest with his rifle and attached bayonet at his right side. The sculpture rests upon a shaft mounted on a middle base with tiered upper and lower sections atop a stepped bottom. There are crossed Confederate battle flags on the front of the shaft.
37. In addition to the above referenced inscription attributed to the UDC, the monument contains the following inscriptions: (a) “To Commemorate With Grateful Love the Patriotism, Valor, and Devotion to Duty, of the Brave Soldiers of Alamance County, Our Confederate Soldiers” (b) “On Fame's Eternal Camping Ground, Their Silent Tents are Spread, and Glory Guards, with Solemn Round, the Bivouac of the Dead." (c) “Faithful Unto Death, They are Crowned with Immortal Glory."
Opposition to the Confederate Monument at the Historic Courthouse 38. Groups of pro-Confederate demonstrators gather in front of the Confederate Monument annually in May to celebrate Confederate Memorial Day. They are often met by citizens who oppose the Confederate monument’s presence in the public square and the neo-confederate white supremacist ideology. 39. Anti-racism protesters have gathered at the Historic Courthouse in greater frequency and in greater numbers since 2015, when white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine Black people worshipping at the Emanuel Methodist Episcopal Church in
10
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 39

downtown Charleston, South Carolina on June 17, 2015 under the banner of the Confederate flag.
40. The attack sparked a new national discussion around Confederate monuments, and many states and municipalities began removing them.
41. However, the North Carolina General Assembly instead passed a law in 2015 preventing local governments from moving any government-owned “object of remembrance” located on public property. N.C. Gen. Stat.§100-2.1.
42. Recently the Mayor of Burlington was joined by fifty other elected officials, Plaintiff NAACP, and other community leaders in calling for the relocation of the Confederate Monument from the steps of the Historic Courthouse.
Nationwide Protests After the Killing of George Floyd 43. On May 25, 2020, Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis Police Department officer, knelt on the neck of George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, for nearly nine minutes, causing his death. Mr. Floyd died as three other officers looked on. The police killing of Mr. Floyd sparked protests across the country against police brutality in more than 2,000 cities and towns in more than 60 countries in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Defendants’ Weekend So-Called “State of Emergency” Orders 44. As the protests in response to Mr. Floyd’s death and against police violence spread nationwide, Defendant Peterman began issuing regular so-called “State of Emergency Declarations” (hereinafter, “orders”) each weekend to suppress such protests.
11
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 39

May 31-June 1, 2020 Order
45. On May 31, the City of Graham posted a press release on its website
announcing the Mayor’s first such order, stating that it was “due to the potential for damage
or injury, due to civil unrest.”
46. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened
or actual civil unrest, damage to property or injury in its municipal city limits.
47. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on
May 31, 2020.
48. Defendant Peterman’s May 31 order included the following restrictions:
(a) “Restricted Access: It shall be unlawful to disobey any barriers, warning signs or other structures that restrict vehicular or pedestrian travel due to road closure, detours, hazards, etc.”
(b) “Furthermore, this declaration denies or restricts access to areas, streets, highways or locations within the City in which that restriction or denial of access or use is reasonably necessary to promote efforts being made to overcome the emergency or to prevent further aggravation of the emergency.”
49. On May 31, the City of Graham posted a notice on its website announcing
the following additional terms of the order:
(a) “A curfew of 9 p.m. with the exception of Public Safety personnel, Doctors, Nurses and such other classes of persons as may be essential to the preservation of public order and immediately necessary to serve safety, health and welfare needs of the people within the City;”
(b) “a prohibition against travel to or within the Fire Limits as prescribed in Section 6-31 of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances;”
12
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 39

(c) “a prohibition against the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages away from one’s own premises;” and
(d) “a prohibition against the use of dangerous weapons and substances unless permitted or exempted by Section 2-54(4) of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances or application General Statute.”
50. On June 1, 2020, the City of Graham posted on its official Facebook page that it was lifting the order and curfew effective immediately.
June 4–June 9, 2020 Order 51. On June 4, 2020 at 9:01p.m., the City of Graham posted a press release on its Facebook page and its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman’s restricting people’s movement “due to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” 52. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property or injury in its municipal city limits. 53. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on June 4, 2020. 54. Defendant Peterman’s order stated that it would “shall remain in effect until June 9 at 6am unless it is rescinded prior.” 55. The June 4 order included restrictions and conditions identical to the May 31-June 1 order with two amendments: (a) Extending the curfew from 9p.m. to 6a.m.
13
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 39

(b) Clarifying that “citizens traveling to or from places of employment” were exempted from the curfew.
56. On June 5, 2020 at 3:57 p.m., the City of Graham posted an “FAQ sheet” about the curfew and order to its official Facebook page and website. The FAQ included additional restrictions that were not explicitly included in either of the prior written orders:
(a) "The curfew prohibits anyone within the City of Graham, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., from gathering or demonstrating on any public street, sidewalk, or public property."
(b) The curfew “prohibits travel upon any public street unless it is for the purpose of seeking medical care, food, or other necessities for yourself or a family member.”
(c) “Violation of the curfew is punishable as a class 2 misdemeanor.” (d) “All businesses are permitted to remain open during the nightly curfew if they
choose to do so.” (e) “Unnecessary additional travel or lingering in public space is prohibited.” 57. On June 5, 2020 at 4:52p.m., the City of Graham posted a comment on its official Facebook page, alongside a photo of the order, that “[p]reventative actions are being taken to manage the potential for widespread damage, injury, or loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” 58. On June 5, 2020 at 4:57 p.m., the City of Graham posted a letter from Defendant Peterman to its official Facebook page. This letter included the following statement regarding the State of Emergency:
“There are several instances where a State of Emergency is declared in advance and disseminated with an excess of time. For events such as hurricanes or winter storms, we often have days to prepare based on scientific forecasts. The threat
14
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 39

of civil unrest is generally not a planned instance shared with the City. The priority of notice in these types of circumstances quickly creates the scenario of emergency management.” 59. On June 9, 2020 at 6 a.m., the City of Graham posted to its official Facebook page that the order had been rescinded.
June 20–June 22, 2020 Order 60. On June 20, 2020 at 8:32p.m., the City of Graham posted a press release to its Facebook page and its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman “due to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” 61. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property, injury or loss of life within city limits. 62. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on June 20, 2020. 63. The June 20 order included restrictions and conditions identical to the June 4 order. 64. On June 22, 2020 10:07a.m., the City of Graham posted to its official Facebook that the order had been rescinded.
June 25–June 29, 2020 City of Graham “Emergency” 65. On June 25, 2020 at 7:44p.m., the City of Graham posted a press release to its Facebook page and its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman “due
15
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 39

to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property due to civil unrest.”
66. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property, injury or loss of life within city limits.
67. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on June 25, 2020.
68. This June 25 order was identical to the June 20 order. 69. On June 26, 2020 at 12:00 p.m., the Alamance County Sheriff posted to its official Facebook the following: “[E]ffective June 26, 2020, no permits to protest in the city of Graham, NC to include the Alamance County Courthouse have been granted, nor will be granted for the foreseeable future. Any group(s) attempting to protest without a permit, will be in violation and subject to arrest.” 70. On June 26, 2020 at 3:55 p.m., the Alamance County Sheriff official Facebook page posted the following: “The Alamance County Sheriff's Office DOES NOT participate in the permitting process for the city of Graham, NC. We are assisting the city of Graham, NC by providing them our social media platforms to help get the word out of their decision, so the public may be so informed.” 71. At the time the Sheriff declared a protest permit ban, the City of Graham had not yet done so.
16
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 39

72. On June 27, 2020 at 11:51a.m., the City of Graham posted an Amended Declaration of State of Emergency to its official Facebook page. This amended order included two changes to the original:
(a) The curfew was to begin at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. (b) “A temporary suspension of the issuance of parade and demonstration [sic]
based on a clear and imminent threat to public safety.” 73. This amended order differed from the Alamance Sheriff’s protest ban in that it made the ban temporary rather than “for the foreseeable future.” 74. The City of Graham posted a Media Release from the Graham Police Department about the Amended order which stated the following: “Graham Police Department has been receiving viable intelligence about a large group of individuals demonstrating at the historic courthouse located at the court square on 6/27/20. A peaceful protest was planned for this date, but a permit was denied. The coordinators of that event have since canceled their planned event. However, we found that another group of people were planning to come that were unrelated to the original group. The intel we received showed that the people had been involved with other protests in the state that had turned violent. In response to this potential threat we upstaffed to prepare for the crowed [sic] and requested mutual aid from multiple agencies. The mayor also amended the current state of emergency to include a temporary suspension of the issuance of parade and demonstration permits due to the clear and imminent threat to public safety.” 75. On June 29, 2020 at 3:52 p.m., the City of Graham posted to its official Facebook that the order had been rescinded.
17
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 17 of 39

The Graham City Permit Ordinance 76. Graham City Code Sec. 18-175 provides: “No parade, picket line or group demonstration is permitted on the sidewalks or streets of the city unless a permit therefor has been issued by the city; provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the peaceful assembly of any group for orderly expression or communication between those assembled.” 77. Graham City Code Sec. 18-172 defines a “group demonstration” as “any assembly together or concert of action between two or more persons for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto.” 78. The ordinance defines parade as “any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition or procession of any kind in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places.” 79. It defines picket line as “any persons formed together for the purpose of making known any position or promotion of said persons or on behalf of any organization.” 80. Graham City Ordinance Sec. 18-178 provides for the application and issuance of permits and states: “The chief of police or, in his absence, the next highest ranking officer of the city police department is authorized to issue permits as required in this article, and in the issuance thereof shall: (1) Require a written application therefor to be filed 24 hours in advance of such
parade, picket line or group demonstration on a form prescribed by said department, and shall require the application to be signed by the person filing such application and the applicant shall therein state the proposed site, time,
18
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 18 of 39

purpose and size of such parade, picket line or group demonstration, and whether or not any minors below the age of 18 years shall participate.
(2) Refuse to issue such permit when the activity or purpose stated in the application would violate any ordinance of the city or statute of the state, or when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety, or hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the sidewalks or streets of the city.
(3) Specify in the permit whether or not minors below the age of 18 years will be permitted to participate. The chief of police or, in his absence, the next highest ranking police officer of the city on duty shall pass upon whether or not minors below the age of 18 years shall be permitted to participate in the parade, picket line or group demonstration, and shall base his determination upon whether or not the purpose, time or place of the participation will be detrimental to or endanger the health, welfare or safety of said minors.
81. Graham City Ordinance Sec. 18-179 sets out the “prerequisites” for issuing
permits as follows: “The chief of police or other designated officer in considering the
issuance of a permit shall, among other considerations provided, consider and find as a
requisite for issuance that:
(1) The activity will not require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties.
(2) The activity will not interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property.
(3) The activity can be conducted without unreasonable interference with normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area, will not prevent normal police or fire protection to the public, and will not be likely to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance.
82. Graham City Ordinance Sec. 18-180 provides for the contents of the permit
as follows:
(a) A permit under this article may set the starting time and duration of a parade, demonstration or picket line and may set the speed of its travel; the space
19
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 19 of 39

between persons or vehicles; the portions or areas of the streets and sidewalks to be used; the length of the parade, group or line; and such other requirements as the chief of police or other designated officer may include in the permit for the control of free movement of traffic upon the streets and sidewalks, or for the health, safety and property rights of the participants and the general public. Failure to comply with such requirements, as set forth in the permit, shall be unlawful.
(b) The applicant for a permit shall specify and the permit shall designate the person in charge of the parade, group demonstration or picket line, and such person in charge shall accompany such parade, demonstration, or picket line and shall carry such permit with him at that time.
83. Graham City Ordinance Sec. 18-181 restricts the number of participants as
follows: “Any picket line or group demonstration which is located in any area subject to
normally heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic may be limited in the permit issued to a
concentration of not more than six persons participating within any designated area of the
street or sidewalk; provided that the officer issuing the permit may specify a larger number
in the designated area where, in his judgment, conditions permit a higher concentration.
The term "designated area" is defined as the entire width of said street or sidewalk “within
a distance measured along its length for 100 feet.”
84. Graham City Ordinance Sec. 18-177 requires that the presence of minors be
identified in the permit, and that minors are prohibited from participating in demonstrations
unless the permit specifically allows it. It provides: “In any parade, picket line or group
demonstration, it shall be unlawful:
(1) For any minor below the age of 18 years to participate or be allowed to participate, and any person encouraging, leading or allowing such minor to so participate, unless a permit therefor has been issued, shall be guilty of a violation of this section.
20
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 20 of 39

(2) For any person to lead, guide, participate in or in any way support or encourage such parade, picket line or group demonstration when a minor below the age of 18 years is participating therein, unless a permit for such participation by such minor has been issued.
(3) For any parent to knowingly permit any minor child of such parent under 18 years of age to participate in such parade, picket line or group demonstration unless a permit for such participation by such minor has been issued.
(4) To cause, participate in, lead or encourage any parade, picket line or group demonstration to deviate in any manner from the authority therefor specified in the permit.
Individual Plaintiff Allegations NAACP
85. Plaintiff NAACP is an expressive association that seeks to promote the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination. NAACP engages in expression, including protest, to advance the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination.
86. The NAACP joined Alamance and Elon University leaders in a written request to the County to remove the Confederate monument from Graham’s town square.
87. NAACP has a direct and immediate interest in the issues presented in recent protests of racialized police violence and the Confederate monument in Graham, and in the rights of their members to participate, now and in the future, in such public demonstrations and protests against institutionalized racism, police violence and the Confederate monument-- rights enshrined in the laws and traditions of this state and nation, including the right to assemble with others and to freedom of speech and movement.
21
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 21 of 39

88. Those rights are trampled by Defendants through the ordinance provisions and orders that are the subject of this action, and by the unlawful “State of Emergency” orders that have been issued and will likely continue to issue absent an order from the Court.
89. In response to Defendants’ actions, including the ordinance and orders, Plaintiff NAACP has been forced to divert resources to assess, plan for and educate its members about public gatherings, demonstrations and protests which it has organized or in which its members wish to participate that would trigger Defendants’ unlawful conduct in Graham.
90. Such diversion of resources includes applying for a permit under the subject ordinance on June 26, 2020 for a gathering organized by faith leaders in Alamance County and the NAACP to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in Graham’s public square.
91. The time and effort Plaintiff NAACP has expended due to Defendants’ unlawful ordinance and repeated “State of Emergency” orders have reduced its capacity to plan events and programming consistent with its organizational mission. Defendants’ actions are directly frustrating Plaintiff NAACP’s capacity to fulfill its mission of effecting community and institutional change through peaceful public demonstrations in downtown Graham and at the Confederate monument site.
Tamara O. Kersey
22
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 22 of 39

92. Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey has attended vigils and rallies in the Alamance County towns of Mebane and Burlington to protest racist police brutality in the wake the killing of George Floyd, but has not protested in her hometown of Graham due to Defendants’ unlawful actions. While Defendant Peterman and Johnson’s orders have been in place, she has reasonably feared being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for violating them. At all other times, she has reasonably feared being cited for not obtaining a permit from Defendant Prichard.
93. On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kersey applied to Defendant Prichard for a permit as required under the ordinance for a prayer vigil on either July 18 or 25, sponsored by the NAACP and faith leaders in Alamance County, to protest police brutality against Black people and communities of color nationwide and in Alamance County, and to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in Graham’s public square.
94. Despite multiple requests to the Graham Police Department (GPD), Plaintiff Kersey has not received any response from Defendant Prichard or anyone else in the GPD regarding her permit application, making it difficult for her to plan for the demonstration. Based on Defendants’ practice of waiting to grant or deny a permits until just before the day of the requested assembly, and the lack of any required deadline for a response in the Ordinance, Plaintiff Kersey fears that she will be unable to hold her demonstration despite having applied for the permit weeks in advance.
95. In light of the Ordinance’s vague and discretionary standards and Defendant Johnson’s and GPD’s prior treatment of those protesting the monument and racialized
23
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 23 of 39

police brutality, Plaintiff Kersey also fears that her permit request will be denied because of the viewpoint she seeks to express.
96. Plaintiff Kersey has been unable to properly publicize her planned demonstration to the faith community, Plaintiff NAACP members, supporters, and the public, due to fear of subjecting participants to arrest by Defendant Johnson, his deputies or the GPD should Plaintiff Kersey, her fellow faith leaders and the NAACP proceed with the vigil without a permit.
Tenae Turner 97. Plaintiff Tenae Turner submitted an application for a group demonstration to the Graham City Police on June 24, 2020 at 4:33p.m. 98. Plaintiff Turner’s application requested a permit for a group of one hundred to three hundred (100-300) people to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham on June 27, 2020. 99. On June 26, 2020 at 9:15p.m., Graham Assistant Chief of Police, Kristy Cole emailed Plaintiff Turner a document denying her application. 100. Assistant Chief Cole’s email stated multiple reasons for the denial of Plaintiff Turner’s application including: a. an incomplete address; b. the potential for the demonstration to interfere with orderly movement of individuals and property owner’s right to “enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”; c. excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties; and
24
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 24 of 39

d. that “[r]ecent events in Court Square on 6/20/20 has [sic] already placed business owners in fear for the safety of their property, as well as, their employees. We feel that this event would further enhance the fear and concerns that they have.”
101. Assistant Chief Cole’s email also stated that no protests are allowed at the Historic Courthouse.
102. On June 27, 2020, Plaintiff Turner submitted a new application for a permit to demonstrate that she hoped would address the concerns outlined in Defendants’ denial email for her June 24, 2020 application.
103. In this new permit application, Plaintiff Turner requested a permit for a demonstration on June 28, 2020 at the Historic Courthouse from 6p.m. to 8p.m. for up to eight people.
104. The application included Plaintiff Turner’s complete address and stated that protestors would be social distancing at least 6 feet apart, wearing masks, and not yelling or chanting, although they would be holding signs.
105. On June 27, 2020 at 7:04 p.m., Assistant Chief Cole wrote to Plaintiff Turner informing her that she would “need to seek written permission from Alamance County to be on the grounds of county property” and asked her to resubmit her application with that written permission included.
106. Plaintiff Turner replied that demonstrators would protest on the grass at the Historic Courthouse or on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the Historic Courthouse.
107. Assistant Chief Cole replied that she was unable to issue a permit for group demonstration due to the Mayor’s June 27, 2020 State of Emergency order.
25
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 25 of 39

108. Plaintiff Turner then cancelled the planned demonstration out of fear that participants would be arrested if they demonstrated in Graham without a permit.
109. Plaintiff Turner plans to continue to organize group demonstrations outside the Historic Courthouse in the near future.
Terence Colin Dodd 110. Plaintiff Dodd, with his mouth and nose covered for COVID-19 transmission prevention, peacefully approached the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse around 6:00a.m. on Saturday, June 27, 2020 holding a poster that read “Black Lives Matter.” 111. One of Defendant Johnson’s deputies was in a squad car parked beside the monument at the crosswalk. 112. As Plaintiff Dodd approached the monument with his sign, the deputy got out of the car, walked toward Plaintiff Dodd and ordered him to step back. 113. The deputy had no mouth or nose covering to protect against COVID-19 transmission. 114. Plaintiff Dodd asked the deputy to explain the ordinance or other legal authority that permitted him to prevent Plaintiff Dodd from demonstrating at the Confederate monument on the Historic Courthouse steps. 115. The deputy did not answer Plaintiff Dodd, but instead called on his radio for backup. 116. A half dozen squad cars arrived, and eight to ten Sheriff deputies.
26
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 26 of 39

117. Plaintiff felt overwhelmed and fearful, but kept saying to the deputies, “Tell me the law, tell me what law I'm breaking,” and asking if he was under arrest.
118. GPD officers then arrived and told Plaintiff Dodd that he could not be on County property but could walk on the sidewalk across the street from the Confederate monument so long as he was alone, not with a group.
119. Because he did not want to get arrested, Plaintiff Dodd obeyed the officers and the deputies and walked alone on the sidewalk with his sign until close to 10:00a.m., when he left.
Nerissa Rivera 120. On June 27, 2020 Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera was planning to go to the protest in Graham organized by Plaintiff Turner. She had seen the protest announced on Facebook. 121. Plaintiff Rivera opposes the Confederate Monument standing outside the Alamance Historic Courthouse because it represents murder, inequality, and racism. It frustrates her to see law enforcement wasting taxpayer money protecting the monument when there was real public safety work that needed to be done in the county. 122. Before she got to Graham on June 27, she learned that Plaintiff Turner had cancelled the demonstration because she could not get a permit from the City and did not want anyone to get arrested or injured. 123. Plaintiff Rivera decided to go to downtown Graham and protest alone.
27
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 27 of 39

124. Before going out to the monument to protest, Plaintiff Rivera joined some friends at a restaurant near the Historic Courthouse.
125. Plaintiff Rivera joined a group to walk with a friend back to her car, and they walked in pairs, six feet apart on the sidewalk together to comply with COVID-19 precautions.
126. When they crossed the street, two Graham police officers approached Plaintiff Rivera and her friends and told them they could not protest.
127. Members of the group responded to the officers that they were not protesting, and explained they were walking their friend to her car.
128. Officers said they would allow them to walk to the car but would not allow them to protest. Officers instructed the group that if they started to protest, they would be ordered to leave or disperse.
129. Plaintiff Rivera and the group entered a local business owned by a Black woman, and then exited to walk their friend to her car.
130. Plaintiff Rivera and her group walked a second time along the path they had just taken.
131. Officers approached again and ordered Plaintiff Rivera and her group to disperse.
132. Across the street, there was a group of white people with Confederate flags. Members of Plaintiff Rivera’s group asked the officers why the other group with Confederate flags was not ordered to leave.
28
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 28 of 39

133. Graham police officers responded that they had not been instructed to concentrate on the area where the other group with the Confederate flags was located.
134. Plaintiff Rivera left the scene without being able to demonstrate with her group.
135. Plaintiff Rivera had intended to join a protest at the Historic Courthouse which was cancelled as a result of the denial of Plaintiff Turner’s permit. She attempted to walk around the Historic Courthouse in protest and was threatened by police. She intends to continue her efforts to protest the presence of the Confederate monument at the Alamance Historic Courthouse.
Destiny Clarke 136. Plaintiff Destiny Clarke arrived in downtown Graham on June 28, 2020 at approximately 7:00p.m. 137. Defendant Peterman’s June 27, 2020 order prohibiting group demonstrations was in effect. 138. Plaintiff Clarke exited her car and began walking alone and silently on West Elm Street carrying a “Black Lives Matter” sign. 139. As she turned onto the sidewalk on NW Court Square, she was stopped by a GPD officer who threatened to arrest her if she did not leave the area. 140. The officer told Plaintiff Clarke that there is no protesting allowed and she needed to leave or be arrested.
29
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 29 of 39

141. Plaintiff Clarke replied, “I don’t have to leave because it’s a public place and it’s before curfew.”
142. The officer persisted in threatening to arrest her if she did not leave. 143. Plaintiff Clarke offered to throw away her sign and then threw it away. 144. As she was throwing away “Black Lives Matter” sign, the officer continued to threaten to arrest her if she did not leave. 145. Once she threw away her sign, the officer left. 146. During the interaction, a family passed by carrying ice cream and the officer did not interact with them or ask them to leave. 147. Plaintiff Clarke believes that she was threatened with arrest specifically because she was carrying a sign with a political message. 148. She was not permitted to walk alone on the public sidewalk in Graham, apparently because she was carrying a poster with anti-racist speech on it. 149. Plaintiff Clarke plans to continue to protest at the Alamance Historic Courthouse in the near future.
Annie Simpson 150. On June 29, 2020 at 3:25p.m., Plaintiff Annie Simpson called the GPD to inquire about how to apply for a permit to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. 151. Assistant Chief Kristy Cole informed Plaintiff Simpson that she would have to submit written permission from the Alamance County Manager’s Office along with her
30
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 30 of 39

application for demonstration permit in order to hold a permitted demonstration at the Historic Courthouse.
152. On June 29, 2020 at 4:02p.m., Plaintiff Simpson called Defendant Hagood’s office to inquire about the process of acquiring written permission to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse.
153. Plaintiff Simpson informed the individual who answered the phone in Defendant Hagood’s office that she was applying for a protest permit with GPD and that the protest would be on county property at the Historic Courthouse.
154. Plaintiff Simpson asked for Defendant Hagood’s email address so she could request the written permission GPD told her was needed. The person she spoke with asked her what she needed the permit for, and she answered that she was applying for a protest permit. After waiting on hold, Plaintiff Simpson was told, “I’m not sure why Graham is telling you to contact the County Manager because the county does not issue any kind of protest permits. You’ll have to go through the City of Graham.”
155. Plaintiff Simpson explained again that she had been told by Assistant Chief Cole that she needed to gain written permission from the County Manager before she could even apply for a permit to demonstrate on the grass or steps outside the Alamance County Historical Courthouse.
156. Defendant Hagood’s staff person responded that no protest would be allowed on courthouse grounds.
31
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 31 of 39

157. Plaintiff Simpson asked for clarification and Defendant’s staff person repeated that no protests are allowed on courthouse grounds.
158. Plaintiff Simpson again requested Defendant Hagood’s email address so she could send a written request and the staff person gave it to her.
159. On June 29, 2020 at 4:08p.m., Plaintiff Simpson sent Defendant Haygood the following email requesting written permission to demonstrate on the steps and/or grass of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse:
160. As of this filing, Plaintiff Simpson has yet to receive a reply to her email and is therefore unable to even begin the process of requesting a permit from Graham to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse.
32
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 32 of 39

Adam Rose 161. Plaintiff Adam Rose became concerned about police and governmental overreaction to peaceful protests in Graham in early June 2020. 162. On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff Rose attended the Graham City Council meeting and attempted to express his concerns. One of the Council Members stood up and walked out of the room while Plaintiff Rose was presenting his case. 163. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Rose passed by the Historic Courthouse Square and was surprised to see neo-confederate demonstrators near the monument openly carrying firearms, in contravention of state law regarding public demonstrations. 164. On June 26, 2020 Plaintiff Rose filed an application for a permit to demonstrate at Historic Courthouse Square. Plaintiff Rose indicated he planned to attend with five others on June 28 for a two-hour period. 165. On June 27, Assistant Chief Cole informed Plaintiff Rose that his permit had been denied, and that no permits would be issued for an indefinite period of time. 166. On June 28, after contacting Graham Police and getting their permission, Plaintiff Rose went by himself and displayed a sign across from the Historic Courthouse for approximately two hours. He was not bothered by the police during this time.
Plaintiff Gregory Drumwright
33
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 33 of 39

167. On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Drumwright applied for a permit to hold a large demonstration at the Historic Courthouse square in Graham on July 11.
168. Soon after emailing the permit application to the GPD, Plaintiff Drumwright received an emailed acknowledgement of receipt of his application stating that it would be forwarded to GPD Lieutenant Flood, who would then follow up with Plaintiff Drumwright,
169. Plaintiff Drumwright later telephoned Lt. Flood, who told Plaintiff that he had seen Plaintiff’s application and would get back to him about it.
170. To date, Lieutenant Flood has not responded to Plaintiff’s subsequent calls or otherwise given Plaintiff any information about the status of his application.
171. Plaintiff Drumwright was concerned that Defendants will not advise him whether his permit is granted in sufficient time to be able to plan and make arrangements for the July 11 demonstration.
172. For that reason, on July 1, Plaintiff Drumwright called Graham’s Assistant City Manager, Aaron Holland, concerning his permit application.
173. Mr. Holland told Plaintiff Drumwright that Defendant Johnson was not allowing any permits for protests to be issued.
174. Plaintiff Drumwright plans to go to Graham on July 4, 2020 accompanied by other community members who have been denied their civil rights, to demonstrate and protest peaceably in and around the courthouse square in Graham.
34
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 34 of 39

175. Those community members have witnessed white people who want to keep the Confederate monument demonstrating in the same public space without any interference by any law enforcement officers.
176. However, those who oppose the monument because it glorifies the legacy of slavery and racial oppression of African Americans in Alamance County have been dispersed from that same property by law enforcement officers.
177. On July 4, Plaintiff Drumwright intends to protest Graham’s ordinance and Defendants’ violation of people’s rights to protest against white supremacy, police brutality and racial oppression.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF FREE EXPRESSION, FREE ASSOCIATION, AND ASSEMBLY RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983 On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants 178. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
forth herein. 179. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the free
expression, free association, and assembly rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff NAACP asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
35
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 35 of 39

180. In the following paragraphs, references to the First Amendment include the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
181. The ordinance impermissibly burdens protected speech, assembly, and association, including protests that oppose institutional racism, police brutality, and the continued presence of Confederate monuments in Graham.
182. The ordinance is a content-based regulation that prohibits constitutionally protected speech meant to protest or make known “any position.”
183. The ordinance, which prohibits protests of any size anywhere in the city without 24 hours of advance notice and permission from the police chief, is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or substantial government interest, and fails to leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
184. The ordinance is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it invests officers with sweeping discretion to suppress speech.
185. Defendants’ denial of attempts by Plaintiffs and countless other speakers to protest in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham’s town square is also an unreasonable time, place, and manner restriction and unconstitutional prior restraint.
COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983
On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
36
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 36 of 39

186. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
187. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of due process rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff NAACP asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
188. The ordinance is void for vagueness because it fails to provide Plaintiffs and countless other speakers with fair notice of what standards they must satisfy in order to be permitted to protest, assemble, or march anywhere in the City, and because it invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
189. The ordinance additionally violates Plaintiffs’ right to travel and freedom of movement under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling or substantial government interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the following relief: (a) Temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance; (b) Order Defendants to immediately notify their officers, agents, employees, and
other persons in active concert or participation with them, if preliminary injunctive relief is entered; (c) Enter a declaratory judgment stating that the Ordinance violates Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and assembly, due process, and freedom of movement under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution;
37
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 37 of 39

(d) Enter a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance; (e) Enter a declaratory judgment stating that Defendants must allow the free
exercise of First Amendment rights to assembly and speech at the Historic Courthouse square and on any other public property; (f) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and as otherwise permitted by law; and (g) Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of July 2020,
/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina P. O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-834-3466
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel. 919-914-6106

Vera Eidelman New York Bar No. 5646088 veidelman@aclu.org Emerson Sykes New York Bark No. 5020078 esykes@aclu.org ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2500
C. Scott Holmes Lockamy Law Firm North Carolina State Bar No. 25569 scott.holmes@lockamylaw.com 3130 Hope Valley Road Durham, North Carolina 27707 Tel: 919-401-5913
Counsel for Plaintiffs

38

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 38 of 39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and e-mailed true copies of this motion and attachments to the following: Robert M. Ward, Graham City Attorney rward42@triad.rr.com, J. Bryan Coleman, Graham City Attorney jbryancoleman@triad.twcbc.com Clyde B. Albright, Alamance County Attorney clyde.albright@alamance-nc.com
s/ Kristi Graunke Counsel for Plaintiffs
39
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 39 of 39

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. _____________

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR )

THE ADVANCEMENT OF

)

COLORED PEOPLE ALAMANCE )

COUNTY BRANCH, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and LR 65.1, Plaintiffs Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Tamara O. Kersey, Colleen Tenae Turner, Terence Colin Dodd, Destiny Clarke, Annie Simpson, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, and Gregory Drumwright move this Court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing Art. VI, Sections 18-172, 18174–181 of Graham, North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (hereinafter, “The Ordinance”). 1The Ordinance unconstitutionally (1) blocks two or more people who wish to protest— and even single individuals who seek to march while carrying a sign—in Graham from doing so without a permit, (2) subjects those seeking a permit to vague and, in effect,
1 Links to the City of Graham’s ordinances are available at https://www.cityofgraham.com/ordinances/
1

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 7

content- and viewpoint-based standards, and (3) severely restricts the size and conduct of protests for which a permit is obtained. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows:
1. The Ordinance makes it unlawful for two or more people to gather “for the purpose of protesting” or “making known any position or thought” anywhere in the City without first obtaining the Chief of Police’s permission at least 24 hours in advance. Chapter 18, Art VI. §§ 18-172, 18-175, 18-178.
2. The Ordinance additionally makes it unlawful for any individual to parade or march “in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places” without first obtaining the Chief of Police’s permission at least 24 hours in advance. Chapter 18, Art VI. §§ 18-172, 18-175, 18-178.
3. The Ordinance allows the Chief to limit even permitted gatherings to six people and order their dispersal upon any violation of the permit, no matter how small. Chapter 18, Art VI. § 18-181.
4. The Ordinance also bans the exercise of any speech or assembly rights by minors unless they obtain the discretionary permission of the Chief. Chapter 18, Art VI. § 18-177.
5. Plaintiffs are organizations or individuals who have recently engaged in or attempted to engage in protests near the Alamance County courthouse in the central square of Graham, North Carolina, where a Confederate monument prominently stands. Plaintiffs seek to organize and engage in imminent future protests in
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 7

Graham, including as soon this July 4 weekend, but will not be able to do so without obtaining a permit. The Ordinance impermissibly burdens and violates the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and others like them who seek to protest in Graham. 6. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.SC. § 1983 alleging that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 7. As demonstrated in the attached exhibits and their brief accompanying this Motion, Plaintiffs meet all four requirements for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and LR 65.1. 8. First, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Ordinance violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because: (a) it is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest; (b) it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint; and (c) it is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on their claim that the Ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissibly vague. 9. Second, the Ordinance forces Plaintiffs to choose between forgoing their constitutional rights to protest or facing arrest and fines, and thus imposes ongoing, irreparable harm on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs show by their declarations attached to this
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 7

Motion that they will suffer immediate and irreparable loss of their rights to protest this weekend and in the days imminently following, necessitating that a restraining order be entered before Defendants may be heard in opposition. 10. Third, entry of an injunction poses no harm to Defendants, as it would restrain enforcement of an unconstitutional law. 11. Fourth, an injunction would be in the public interest because it would uphold Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and enable them and countless other speakers to exercise their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights during the pendency of this litigation. 12. Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby certifies that they have attempted to provide notice to Defendants of this Motion by contacting the offices of the Graham City attorney and the Alamance County attorney by telephone and email on the afternoon of July 2, 2020, and by emailing them the Complaint and the instant Motion, brief, and attachments contemporaneously with this filing. 13. Plaintiffs should not be required to post a security bond because no harm, pecuniary or otherwise, will result to Defendants if an injunction is granted. See Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 332 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he district court retains the discretion to set the bond amount as it sees fit or waive the security requirement.”); Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.C. v. Cansler, 804 F. Supp. 2d 482, 501 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (“Given the lack of any monetary injury to Defendant, no bond will be required.”);
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 7

Doe v. Pittsylvania Cty., Va., 842 F. Supp. 2d 927, 937 (W.D. Va. 2012) (fixing security bond at $0 because “there can be no monetary damages or other harm to the Board from conducting its meetings in a manner consistent with the Establishment Clause[.]”); Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater, Fla., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (“Waiving the bond requirement is particularly appropriate where a plaintiff alleges the infringement of a fundamental constitutional right.”). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: (a) Immediately enter an order temporarily restraining Defendants from enforcing
the Ordinance; (b) Set a date on which to hear oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction; (c) Preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance; (d) Order Defendants to immediately notify their officers, attorneys, agents,
employees, and other persons in active concert or participation with them, of any temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction that is entered; (e) If a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is entered, waive the requirement of a security bond; and (f) Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 7

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of July, 2020,
/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina P. O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-354-5066
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel. 919-914-6106

Vera Eidelman New York Bar No. 5646088 veidelman@aclu.org Emerson Sykes New York Bar No. 5020078 esykes@aclu.org ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2500
/s/ C. Scott Holmes C. Scott Holmes Lockamy Law Firm North Carolina State Bar No. 25569 scott.holmes@lockamylaw.com 3130 Hope Valley Road Durham, North Carolina 27707 Tel: 919-401-5913
Counsel for Plaintiffs

6 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and e-mailed true copies of this motion and attachments to the following: Robert M. Ward, Graham City Attorney rward42@triad.rr.com, J. Bryan Coleman, Graham City Attorney jbryancoleman@triad.twcbc.com Clyde B. Albright, Alamance County Attorney clyde.albright@alamance-nc.com
s/ Kristi Graunke Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 7

DECLARATION OF ALAMANCE COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP
I, Barrett Brown, do hereby say under oath the following:
1. I am of legal age and competent to provide this affidavit. All the information herein is based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I am an adult African American resident of Graham, North Carolina, and serve as President of the Alamance County Branch of the NAACP. I am authorized to provide this affidavit on the West Chatham NAACP’s behalf.
3. The NAACP has pursued its mission to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and discrimination since 1909. Our branch has pursued a variety of strategies to carry out this goal, including public education and advocacy, and, where necessary, litigation, for the benefit of our members and our mission.
4. As part of that mission, our Branch has advocated for the removal of the Confederate monument located in front of the Historic County Courthouse in Graham, because it glorifies the legacy of slavery and racial oppression of African Americans in Alamance County. For that reason, our Branch joined Alamance and Elon University leaders in a written request to the County to remove the Confederate monument from Graham’s town square. We have also advocated for criminal justice, against racialized policing of our communities of color, and against police violence against African Americans in Alamance County and nationally.
5. The NAACP is an expressive association that seeks to promote the interests of our members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination. NAACP engages in expression, including protest, to advance the interests of our members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination.
6. NAACP has a direct and immediate interest in the issues presented in recent protests of racialized police violence and the Confederate monument in Graham, and in the rights of our members to participate, now and in the future, in such public demonstrations and protests against institutionalized racism, police violence and the Confederate monument-- rights enshrined in the laws and traditions of this state and nation, including the right to assemble with others and to freedom of speech and movement. Those rights have been trampled through the City of Graham’s ordinance provisions and so-called “State of Emergency” orders issued since the killing by police of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
7. Due to Graham’s permit ordinance and “emergency” orders banning protest, our Branch has been forced to divert resources to assess, plan for and educate our
1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2

members about public gatherings, demonstrations and protests which it has organized or in which its members wish to participate that would trigger unlawful conduct by law enforcement officers in Graham. We have also been deterred from exercising our rights to protest. We plan to nevertheless protest at the monument site this July 4, 2020, despite the reasonable and justified fears many of our members have of being arrested and/or harassed.
8. That diversion of resources includes applying for a permit under the City’s ordinance on June 26, 2020 for a gathering organized by faith leaders in Alamance County and the NAACP to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in Graham’s public square. We are concerned that the City’s delay in responding to our permit application will limit attendance and hinder planning for that event. We also divert resources to hear from and talk with our members about their concerns about getting arrested or harassed by Alamance Sheriff deputies and Graham police just for going out into the street with a “Black Lives Matter” sign or other message about the Confederate monument, white supremacy, racial justice or equal treatment. Our members are also reasonably concerned that if white supremacists / neo-confederate demonstrators were to threaten or harass them on public property near the monument, neither GPD nor the Sheriff’s department would protect them.
9. The time and effort we have expended due to the unlawful permit ordinance and repeated “State of Emergency” orders has reduced our capacity to plan events and programming consistent with our organizational mission. The City, County and Sheriff Department’s actions are directly frustrating our capacity to fulfill our mission of effecting community and institutional change through peaceful public demonstrations in downtown Graham and at the Confederate monument site.
This the 2nd day of July, 2020, I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true and accurate.
Barrett Brown
Barrett Brown, President, Alamance County NAACP
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-1 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2

AFFIDAVIT OF TAMARA O. KERSEY
I, Tamara O. Kersey, do hereby say under oath the following:
1. I am of legal age and competent to provide this affidavit. All the information herein is based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I am an adult African American resident of Graham, North Carolina, Associate Pastor of Wayman Chapel AME in Graham, and a member of the Alamance County Branch of the NAACP (“the Branch” or “NAACP”). I currently serve as the Branch’s Community Coordination Committee Chairperson.
3. I have wanted on a number of occasions, most recently in response to the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, to protest in Graham. I have attended vigils, rallies and/or protests in Mebane and in Burlington against racist police brutality in the wake the killing of George Floyd. I want to organize a protest, sponsored by the NAACP and faith leadership, in resistance to the feeling of a pall over the city of Graham stemming from national and local police brutality and to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in our public square. I desired to organize and/or join faith leaders and those with religious conviction on public property in Graham.
4. However, because of Art. VI of Graham’s Code of Ordinances, which requires any group of “two or more persons” gathering “for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto,” I had to apply for a permit from the Graham police chief at least 24 hours in advance. In addition, because of the additional authority given to the police under the Mayor of Graham’s “Declaration of State of Emergency” on June 25 and June 27 to further restrict people’s freedom of movement and ability to protest on public property, I have not exercised my constitutional rights to assemble and speak out against injustice out of fear I will be arrested.
5. Before the City’s June 27 “Amended Declaration of State of Emergency” came out, I petitioned Graham Police Department for a permit the morning of Friday, June 26 to hold a "Prayer in the Park" in the Sesquicentennial Park in downtown Graham for the dates July 18 or 25. The park is approximately 30 feet across from the courthouse. I am organizing this event with other faith leaders in Alamance County and the NAACP. Our message at this event is to call on our local government and law enforcement officials to address their inequitable treatment of individuals who have gathered near the Confederate monument in Graham. Those government officials, City police and the Alamance County Sheriff Department have allowed neo-confederate demonstrators to congregate with their firearms and other weapons on display, while anti-racist demonstrators have been ordered to disperse. This is not only a threat to public safety, it is also a suppression of our constitutional rights in the public square.
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2

6. In fact, the City’s June 25 curfew and June 27 prohibition on protests or permits looks to me to have been motivated by a demonstration that was to be held on June 25 to protest racialized policing and the continued presence of the Confederate monument.
7. As an African American resident of Graham, I experience the Confederate monument as racist government speech. It venerates the Confederate States of America, whose primary, if not only, purpose was to keep African Americans enslaved. The Graham monument’s inscription celebrates the soldiers who fought to preserve slavery and promotes the mythical, racist and dangerous “Lost Cause” narrative. Because of where it is located, on the North side of the Alamance County Courthouse, the monument speaks for the whole county, and the message is that the Confederacy should have been the victor over the United States in the Civil War to preserve slavery, that black people are inferior and should be enslaved.
8. I would like to be able to join with others who feel as I do about this monument to peaceably protest it without having to first seek permission from the same government entities that engage in racially inequitable treatment of protestors, and without risking arrest. I plan to go to exercise my rights to protest at the monument on July 4, 2020, although I am fearful of being arrested and/or harassed.
9. I have not received any response to my permit application, despite repeated requests to the Graham Police Chief, which makes it impossible for me to plan the Prayer Vigil for later this month. I also worry that the permit will be denied based on the ordinance’s vague standards and the viewpoint I, the NAACP and my fellow faith leaders seek to express. It is a violation of my First Amendment rights for me to even have to apply for this permit. For that reason, and to stop the City’s continued violation of my rights through it’s “State of Emergency” declarations that have been issued regularly since George Floyd’s killing by police on May 25, 2020, I am suing the City of Graham.
I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true and accurate.

Tamara O. Kersey

________

Date:

07/2/2020____________

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2

DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF TENAE TURNER
1. My name is Colleen Tenae Turner and I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to provide the information that follows based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I have lived in Alamance County for almost my entire life. I went to Graham Middle School. I graduated from Graham High School. During my time in the marching band, we marched about the court square. It was a time filled with joy and happiness. When I was on the courthouse square, trying to become Homecoming Queen, we rode around that same square and waved at the town.
3. It pains me to know that I am not allowed to express my concerns for my community in the same manner I once celebrated it. I sought to gather with others to express support for black lives, advocate for the removal of the monument and advocate for equally representative government, and I was denied that right.
4. I believe that all black lives matter, but not because I believe that any other person’s life is less than, but because I recognize the underrepresentation of the black community, even within the community. I recognize the struggle of all underrepresented people and their intersections, which includes women, LGBTQ+, the latinx community, the poor, the indigenous and the immigrant communities and others.
5. I believe the monument is a symbol for the white supremacy that oppresses us all. Removing and placing the monument in a safe museum would be an important gesture of support against the white supremacy that is ingrained in our small community and in the broader world.
6. Since the killing of George Floyd, I have been feeling trapped. I have felt trapped within a system that will never cater to me. There is a sobering reality that at any point in time, that could have been any black man in my life. It could have even been me. I did not feel relief until I was able to gather with others in protest. While protesting I found relief and comfort because I knew that gathered with others, we were being heard.
7. I submitted an application for a group demonstration to the Graham City Police on June 24, 2020 at 4:33pm. In my application, I requested a permit for a group of one hundred to three hundred (100-300) people to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historical Courthouse in Graham on June 27, 2020.
8. On June 26, 2020 at 9:15pm, Graham Assistant Chief of Police, Kristy Cole, emailed me a document denying my application.
9. The document stated multiple reasons for the denial of my application including:
a. an incomplete address;
1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-3 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 3

b. the potential for the demonstration to interfere with orderly movement of individuals and property owner’s right to “enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”;
c. excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties; and d. that “[r]ecent events in Court Square on 6/20/20 has already placed business owners in fear for the safety of their property, as well as, their employees. We feel that this event would further enhance the fear and concerns that they have.”
10. On June 27, 2020, I submitted a new application for permit to demonstrate that I hoped would address the concerns outlined in the “recommendations” section of the denial email from my June 24, 2020 application.
11. In this new application, I requested a permit for a demonstration on June 28, 2020 at the Alamance County Historical Courthouse from 6pm to 8pm for up to eight people, including one minor.
12. The application included my complete address and stated that protestors would be social distancing at least 6 feet, wearing masks, and not yelling or chanting, though they would be holding signs.
13. On June 27, 2020 at 7:04pm, Chief Cole wrote to me saying I would “need to seek written permission from Alamance County to be on the grounds of county property” and asked me to resubmit my application with this written permission included.
14. I replied that demonstrators would protest on the grass at the courthouse or on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the courthouse.
15. Chief Cole replied that she was unable to issue a permit for group demonstration due to the June 27, 2020 State of Emergency.
16. Our nation takes pride in our freedoms of speech and assembly. It is something that is typically used to show why our nation is greater than the next. We aren’t supposed to be deprived of it, but Graham and the larger Alamance County found a way to strip us of the freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution. Graham’s ordinance requiring us to get a permit to protest and their policies, and practices to stop protesting have blocked us from exercising our rights. We must now limit how we exercise our constitutional rights to only what the Sheriff and the Police Department with allow.
17. This Fourth of July weekend, I would like to be able to spontaneously go with a small group of people (less than 10), and walk on the public sidewalks of Graham and the steps at the Alamance Historical Courthouse in Graham without having to first seek a permit from the City of Graham, and without seeking the permission of the Alamance County Manager.
18. I am participating in this lawsuit because I want Graham and Alamance County to open up the city of Graham and the courthouse grounds to peaceful demonstration. I want all law enforcement—including the Graham Police Department, the Alamance County Sheriff, and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-3 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 3

State Police—to respect my right to demonstrate against symbols of government-endorsed white supremacy such as the Confederate monument in front of the county courthouse in Graham. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2020.
3 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-3 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 3

AFFIDAVIT OF TERENCE COLIN DODD
I, Terence Colin Dodd, do hereby say under oath the following:
1. I am of legal age and competent to provide this affidavit. All the information herein is based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a Caucasian male resident of Hillsborough, North Carolina. On the evening of June 26, 2020, I read online about communications from the Alamance Sheriff's department and City of Graham about the City permit requirement for any protest and the City’s “State of Emergency” refusal to issue permits. I was quite angered about this, because it is my right to peaceably assemble and be on public property to exercise my First Amendment rights to protest.
3. I wanted to protest the presence of the Confederate monument in Graham because it symbolizes white supremacy and the continuing suppression of the rights of African Americans to be treated equally. So I drove to Graham the next morning, arriving around 5:30am on Saturday, June 27. I parked in a municipal lot downtown. I had prepared a poster sign that read “Black Lives Matter.” I peacefully and calmly approached the monument at around 6:00am. My plan was to stay there with my sign for as long as I could, and to use my mobile phone to videotape any encounter with law enforcement officers.
4. I coordinated with no one. I am not a member of any group, or affiliated with any civil rights organization, although I support many civil rights causes when I vote.
5. As I approached the monument, I became very nervous as I saw the Alamance Sheriff Department cruiser parked on one side of the monument. I stopped about 6 feet away from the cruiser, and a deputy in uniform promptly got out.
6. I was nervous and my voice was shaking with emotion as I asked the deputy where I was allowed to be. I was completely by myself, so there was no danger to anyone or to any property, including the monument. I thought if ever there was a good time to let a citizen demonstrate freely, surely this was it, just one month after the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis.
7. I had already stepped back away from the deputy, but he immediately ordered me to step back further. He then walked towards me, and he was not wearing any covering over his mouth and nose, which clearly demonstrated that he had no intention of protecting me or my health or my civil rights.
8. I asked him to explain the ordinance or other legal authority that permitted him to prevent me from demonstrating at the Confederate monument on the courthouse steps. He did not answer me, but instead called on his radio for backup. At this point I noticed that the red light and the green light on his body camera on.
1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 3

9. Within seconds, it seemed to me, a half dozen squad cars joined us as well as a parade of Sheriff deputies. I estimate there were eight to ten. I felt overwhelmed and fearful in their presence, despite the privilege my race affords me. I just kept saying to them, “Tell me the law, tell me what law I'm breaking,” and asking if I was under arrest.
10. I asked who would arrest me if I refused to move. They told me Graham Police Department (GPD). I told them to call GPD. At that point I reminded all of the deputies that they needed to be wearing a mask, especially if they had any intention of getting within 6 ft of me.
11. A GPD officer soon arrived on the scene and eventually told me that I could peacefully walk on the sidewalk around the town square as much as I liked, but that I had to be alone, because if anyone else joined me, I would be in violation of the ordinance.
12. I insisted on being allowed to be there with my sign near the monument on County property.
13. I was very afraid for my safety. I stood my ground for a few minutes until they gave me a 2-minute warning, threating to arrest me if I did not leave. Intimidated and angry, I retreated to the sidewalk across the street with about 30 seconds to spare.
14. I spent the next three hours walking around the courthouse square. I was not harassed further. I left in my car shortly before 10:00 a.m.
15. I know I walked into the situation with a lot of privilege, but I did not feel at all safe, not one bit, having been forced by those law enforcement officers off of public property and restricted to the sidewalk around the square. The three hours I spent doing that were some of the most stressful I've ever experienced.
16. I am participating in this lawsuit because I want Alamance County to open up the courthouse grounds to peaceful demonstration. I want all law enforcement—including GPD and Alamance County and State Police-- to respect my right to demonstrate against symbols of government-endorsed white supremacy such as the Confederate monument in front of the county courthouse in Graham. I intend to return to Graham to protest in the near future. However, I do not feel safe protesting there because of the way the Sheriff deputies and Graham police officers treated me on June 27, and because of what I have seen in the news and online about their very different and favorable treatment of neo-confederate demonstrators near the monument.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 3

I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true and accurate.

Terence Colin Dodd Date:

​ T​ . Colin Dodd 2 July 2020

3 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 3

DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF DESTINY CLARKE

1. My name is Destiny Clarke and I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to provide the information that follows based upon my personal knowledge.

2. 7:00pm.

I arrived in downtown Graham, North Carolina on June 28, 2020 at approximately

3. I exited my car and began walking alone and silently on W Elm St in Graham carrying a “Black Lives Matter” sign.

4. As I turned onto the sidewalk on NW Court Square, I was stopped by a Graham police officer who threatened to arrest me if I did not leave the area.

5. The officer told me that there was no protesting allowed and that I needed to leave or be arrested.

6. curfew.”

I replied, “I don’t have to leave because it’s a public place and it’s before

7. The officer persisted in threatening to arrest me if I didn’t leave.

8. I offered to throw away my sign and then threw it away.

9.

As I was throwing away my “Black Lives Matter” sign, the officer continued to

threaten to arrest me if I didn’t leave.

10. Once I threw away my sign, the officer left.

11. During the interaction, a family passed me, carrying ice cream, and the officer did not interact with them or ask them to leave.

12. I believe that I was being threatened with arrest specifically because I was carrying a sign with a political message.

13. I effectively was not allowed to walk alone on a public sidewalk in Graham solely because I was carrying a poster with political speech on it.

14. I would like to be able to spontaneously take a small group of people (less than 10), and walk on the public sidewalks and steps at the historic courthouse in downtown Graham, North Carolina without having to first seek a permit from the City of Graham in advance, and without seeking the permission of the Alamance County Manager.

15. I am participating in this lawsuit because I want Graham and Alamance County to open up the city of Graham and the courthouse grounds to peaceful demonstration. I want all law

1

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-5 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2

enforcement—including the Graham Police Department, the Alamance County Sheriff, and the State Police—to respect my right to demonstrate against symbols of government-endorsed white supremacy such as the Confederate monument in front of the county courthouse in Graham. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2020.
_____________________________________ Destiny Clarke
2 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-5 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2

DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF NERISSA RIVERA
1. My name is Nerissa Rivera and I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to provide the information that follows based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am a fifty-nine year-old female Latina resident of Burlington, North Carolina.
3. On June 27, 2020 I was planning to go to a protest that was organized by Tenae Turner. I had seen the group demonstration announced on Facebook.
4. I had previously joined with another small group of people to walk around Graham in black T-shirts in support of Black Lives Matter in mid-June.
5. I oppose the Confederate Monument standing outside the Alamance Historic Courthouse in downtown Graham because it represents murder, inequality, and racism. It frustrates me to see police officers wasting taxpayer money protecting the monument when there is real police work that needs to be done.
6. I learned that Ms. Turner cancelled the demonstration because she didn’t get a permit, and didn’t want anyone to get arrested or injured.
7. Then I learned about an announcement from the Alamance County sheriff’s office that no more permits would be issued.
8. I decided to go to downtown Graham anyone and conduct a protest of one.
9. I found out about a lunch meeting downtown to strategize. I met with a group of friends. Some of them were members of an organization I belong to: Down Home North Carolina.
10. The restaurant where we met was near the Historic Alamance County Courthouse in downtown Graham.
11. When we left, one of the Black members of our groups asked people to walk her back to her car because she didn’t feel safe.
12. I joined a group to walk with her back to her car, and we walked in pairs, socially distanced apart on the sidewalk together.
13. We were not holding signs.
14. When we crossed the street, two law enforcement officers approached us and said we could not protest.
1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-6 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2

15. Members of our group responded to the officers that we were not protesting, and explained we were walking the woman to her car.
16. Officers said they would allow us to walk to the car, but would not allow us to protest. Officers instructed us that if we started to protest they would order us to leave.
17. We entered a local business owned by an African American woman, and then exited to walk our colleague to her car.
18. We walked a second time along the path we had just taken. 19. Officers approached again and ordered us to disperse. 20. Across the street, there were a group of white people with confederate flags. And we asked the officers why the other group was not ordered to leave. 21. Officers responded that they had not been instructed to concentrate on the area where the other group with the Confederate flags was located. 22. I left the scene without being able to demonstrate with my group. 23. This Fourth of July weekend, I would like to be able to spontaneously go with a small group of people (less than 10), and walk on the public sidewalks of Graham and the steps at the Alamance Historical Courthouse in Graham without having to first seek a permit from the City of Graham, and without seeking the permission of the Alamance County Manager. 24. I am participating in this lawsuit because I want Graham and Alamance County to open up the city of Graham and the courthouse grounds to peaceful demonstration. I want all law enforcement—including the Graham Police Department, the Alamance County Sheriff, and the State Police—to respect my right to demonstrate against symbols of government-endorsed white supremacy such as the Confederate monument in front of the county courthouse in Graham. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2020.
_____________________________________ Nerissa Rivera
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-6 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2

DECLARATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF ADAM ROSE
1. My name is Adam Rose and I am over the age of eighteen and am competent to provide the information that follows based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I have lived in Alamance County all of my life, except for time spent in various countries with the Army NC National Guard that I retired from in 2017. I now reside in Graham, NC and am proud to call Graham home. Graham and Alamance County have always strived to present an image of welcoming and forward thinking, but recent actions have spoken louder than those words.
3. On June 2nd 2020, I was shocked to see in the media that 33 officers from the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office and the Graham Police Department arrived in response to a group of 8 citizens wanting to demonstrate and express their thoughts on current situations. I began looking at the city of Graham’s handling of the situations that arose thereafter with curfews being imposed on the city. During the curfews, I rode through downtown Graham after curfew. I saw that the curfew wasn’t being enforced, as there were police present and plenty of foot and vehicle traffic, yet I didn’t see anyone being stopped.
4. I began to question if the curfew was truly necessary or if it’s only purpose was to give law enforcement another tool to use to arrest someone that they felt was a threat. I attempted to present these concerns to the Graham City Council at their meeting on June 9th, 2020.
5. My comments didn’t receive any response and City Councilman Ricky Hall left the meeting while my comments were being read so they weren’t even received by the full board.
6. On June 21, 2020 I saw Facebook posts calling for all “Patriots” to come protect the Confederate Soldier monument. On my way home, I rode through Court Square and was surprised to see that numerous groups wearing Confederate flags, waving Confederate flags on makeshift sticks, and with Presidential campaign flags were being allowed to congregate on the sidewalks around the monument. I even saw that some of these groups were armed with pistols on their hips. I was confused by this because I knew that NC law prevented carrying weapons at demonstrations and yet they were being openly carried around what constitutes a demonstration under Graham’s ordinances. After seeing this, it became apparent that various groups were having the laws applied to them differently.
7. On June 26th, 2020 I heard that a Black Lives Matter group was planning an unpermitted demonstration in Graham, NC. Soon after that I saw the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office post on Facebook that there would be no permits to protest issued for the foreseeable future and that any group attempting to protest without a permit would be subject to arrest.
8. This announcement struck me to my core. I couldn’t believe that a government entity would so flagrantly deny protestors their First Amendment rights.
1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-7 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 3

9. At my first opportunity, I went to the Graham Police Department to immediately file for a permit to protest because I felt I needed to express my thoughts to everyone possible that this declaration was unconstitutional.
10. When I joined the Army, I swore to an oath to “Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”.
11. For 17 years I strived to live the 7 Army Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage that are so deeply instilled in everyone that serves. I’m not aware of an expiration date on my oath of enlistment and I can’t forget those values that I learned for so long just because I don’t wear the uniform any longer.
12. The United States of America isn’t defined by where our borders fall on a map, it’s defined by the principles and ideology listed in the Constitution. I can’t sit idly by and watch as those principles are eroded by government entities without letting my voice be heard.
13. I filed for a permit for a group demonstration on June 26th, 2020 with the Graham Police Department. I wanted to celebrate First Amendment rights and to protest the statement published by the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office of banning demonstrations.
14. Being that I knew there was a demonstration already planned for Saturday June 27th, 2020 and that the process required 24 hours’ notice, I applied for a demonstration planned to take place on Sunday June 28th, 2020. I chose 9:30 am to 10:30 am as there would be less traffic on a Sunday morning and would be longer than the 24 hours’ notice required.
15. I also chose a location of the corner of Main Street and Court Square as there is a garden there that would allow pedestrian traffic to bypass the demonstration and travel unaffected. I kept the number small at only 6 people as I thought that would be an easy number for law enforcement to devote resources to and wouldn’t require too many resources in order to facilitate.
16. I was told Lieutenant Duane Flood of the Graham PD would be in touch with me about the approval or denial, and on Saturday June 27th, 2020 when I hadn’t heard from anyone on the status of my application I called and left a voicemail with my contact information.
17. On Saturday June 28th, 2020 Assistant Chief Kristy Cole of the Graham Police Department called me at around 8:45 pm to tell me that my permit had been denied due to the State of Emergency proclamation by the Mayor. The accommodations I had made in my application in order to help keep the demonstration as small and easy to facilitate as possible weren’t enough and they could not approve ANY permits for demonstration during the proclamation.
18. Assistant Chief Cole offered to accommodate the demonstration after the proclamation was lifted, which I explained to her that this defeated the purpose of protesting the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-7 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 3

proclamation and showed the irony of their policy requiring a citizen to get permission of the organizations they feel are oppressing them in order to protest the oppression that they feel they are experiencing.
19. As a veteran that served my country honorably and was rightfully prevented from exercising my first amendment right to the fullest during that time, it is painful and humiliating that after so many years of service the time that I decide to exercise my rights I am denied with no rightful justification. Instead, the Court Square is turned into a defensive position and anyone trying to exercise their rights are too intimidated to try because of the statements of law enforcement and by their overwhelming presence. My rights were denied based on the actions of others and with me having no recourse in order to regain them in a timely manner.
20. In the words of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
21. This weekend, I would like I would like the option to spontaneously go with a small group of people (less than 10), and walk on the public sidewalks of Graham and the steps at the Alamance Historical Courthouse in Graham without having to first seek a permit from the City of Graham, and without seeking the permission of the Alamance County Manager.
22. I am participating in this lawsuit because I want Graham and Alamance County to open up the city of Graham and the courthouse grounds to peaceful demonstration. I want all law enforcement—including the Graham Police Department, the Alamance County Sheriff, and the State Police—to respect my right to demonstrate against symbols of government-endorsed white supremacy such as the Confederate monument in front of the county courthouse in Graham. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 2, 2020.
_____________________________________ Adam Rose
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-7 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-8 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-8 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-8 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 3

DECLARATION OF GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT
I, Gregory B. Drumwright, do hereby say under oath the following:
1. I am of legal age and competent to provide this affidavit. All the information herein is based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I am an adult African American resident of Greensboro, North Carolina, Professor of Communications at High Point University, a community organizer and social justice activist, and Senior Minister of the Citadel Church in Greensboro.
3. On July 1, 2020, I applied for a permit for a peaceful demonstration to take place at the courthouse square in Graham on July 11, 2020 to protest racialized policing and police brutality against Black people and our communities, and to protest the Confederate monument there. Soon after emailing the permit application to the Graham Police Department (GPD), I received an emailed acknowledgement of receipt of my application stating that it would be forwarded to GPD Lieutenant Flood, who would then follow up with me.
4. I later telephoned Lt. Flood, who told me that he had seen my application and would get back to me about it.
5. Lieutenant Flood has not responded to my subsequent calls or otherwise given me any information about the status of my application.The delay is making it very difficult for me to plan and make arrangements for our demonstration on July 11, 2020.
6. Later on July 1, I called Graham’s Assistant City Manager, Aaron Holland, concerning my permit application. Mr. Holland told me that Sheriff Johnson was not allowing any permits for protests to be issued.
7. I plan to go to Graham on July 4, 2020, accompanied by other community members who have been denied their civil rights, to demonstrate and protest peaceably in and around the courthouse square in Graham. These community members have witnessed white people who want to keep the Confederate monument demonstrating in the same public space without any interference by any law enforcement officers. However, the GPD and Sheriff deputies have ordered those of us who oppose the monument because it glorifies the legacy of slavery and racial oppression of African Americans in Alamance County to leave that same property.
8. Based on the language of Graham’s ordinance and officers’ and deputies’ treatment of those with a social justice message, I don’t expect to ever be granted a permit by GPD. In addition to protesting the Confederate monument and police racialized brutality, my message is also about the disproportionate numbers of African
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-9 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 2

Americans arrested, charged and convicted by Alamance County law enforcement and court.
This the 2nd day of July, 2020, I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the foregoing representations are true and accurate. Gregory B. Drumwright
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-9 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. _____________

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR )

THE ADVANCEMENT OF

)

COLORED PEOPLE ALAMANCE )

COUNTY BRANCH, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiffs Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Tamara O. Kersey, Colleen Tenae Turner, Terence Colin Dodd, Destiny Clarke, Annie Simpson, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, and Gregory Drumwright, have moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and LR 65.1 for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of Chapter 18, Art. VI, Sections 18-172 and 18-174 through 181 of the City of Graham (“City”), North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (“the Ordinance”). Among other things, the Ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to gather with anyone else “for the purpose of protesting” or “making known any position or thought” anywhere in the City without first obtaining the Chief of Police’s permission at least 24 hours in advance. Plaintiffs argue that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

1 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 20

After review of the declarations, documentary evidence, and briefing submitted by Plaintiffs, the Court will grant the motion for a temporary restraining order.
BACKGROUND The Ordinance provides that “[n]o parade, picket line or group demonstration is permitted on the sidewalks or streets of the city unless a permit therefor has been issued by the city.” Chapter 18, Art. VI. § 18-175. It defines group demonstration as “any assembly together or concert of action between two or more persons for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto,” parade as “any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition or procession of any kind in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places,” and picket line as “any persons formed together for the purpose of making known any position or promotion of said persons or on behalf of any organization.” Id. § 18-172. To enforce the Ordinance, the Chief of Police is authorized to: (1) Require a written application . . . to be filed 24 hours in advance of such
parade, picket line or group demonstration . . . (2) Refuse to issue such permit when the activity or purpose stated in the
application would violate any ordinance of the city or statute of the state, or when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety, or hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the sidewalks or streets of the city. (3) Specify in the permit whether or not minors below the age of 18 years will be permitted to participate. The chief of police or, in his absence, the next highest ranking police officer of the city on duty shall pass upon whether or not minors below the age of 18 years shall be permitted to participate . . . and shall base his determination upon whether or not the purpose, time or
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 20

place of the participation will be detrimental to or endanger the health, welfare or safety of said minors. Id. § 18-178. Moreover, the Ordinance provides that the Chief or other designated officer must, “among other considerations provided,” find as a requisite before issuing any permit that the activity will not (1) “require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties”; (2) “interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”; or (3) “unreasonabl[y] interfere[] with normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area, . . . prevent normal police or fire protection to the public, [or] . . . be likely to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance.” Id. § 18-179. If the Chief of Police grants the permit, he then has discretion to limit the protest or other gathering to “not more than six persons . . . [in] the entire width of [the] street or sidewalk within . . . 100 feet.” Id. § 18-181. During a permitted protest, parade, demonstration, or picket, he has discretion to order individuals to disperse upon a violation of any of the terms of the permit. Id. § 18-176. If individuals fail to disperse, they may be subject to arrest under NC Gen. Stat. § 14-288.5. The Ordinance also makes it illegal for any minor to be present at an expressive gathering without explicit permission from the Chief or other designated officer. It authorizes them to deny such permission upon their own determination that attending would be “detrimental to or endanger [the minor’s] health, welfare or safety.” Art. VI §§
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 20

18-177, 178. Each violation of the Ordinance is “punishable as a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not to exceed $500.” Ch. 1 § 1-12.
In their Complaint and in declarations, Plaintiffs assert that they regularly attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, assemble, and associate in Graham. In particular, Plaintiffs describe recent efforts to protest institutionalized racism, police violence against Black people, and the continued presence of the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham. Because of the Ordinance, however, Plaintiffs contend that their exercise of their First Amendment rights has been impermissibly burdened and restrained. The Court summarizes pertinent parts of Plaintiffs’ allegations, as set forth in their sworn declarations, as follows:
Plaintiff Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) and its members seek to protest racialized police violence and the Confederate monument in Graham. Due to the Ordinance, NAACP asserts it has been forced to divert resources to assess, plan for, and educate its members about public assemblies and demonstrations in Graham, including by applying for a permit to protest the Confederate monument. NAACP says that it fears that its permit applications will be denied due to the viewpoint it and its members wish to express. In addition, because the Ordinance does not set forth a deadline by which Defendant Prichard or his designee must respond to an application, NAACP asserts that it fears that any approval or denial will issue too close in time to the planned protest for them to sufficiently publicize and plan the event. NAACP further states that some of its members plan to protest near the Confederate monument on July 4, but fear harassment and arrest when they do so.
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 20

Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey, who is from Graham, asserts that she has attended vigils and rallies elsewhere in Alamance County to protest police brutality in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, but she has not protested in her hometown. She states that the Ordinance has placed her in fear of being sanctioned for doing so without a permit. Rather than forgo exercising her constitutional rights, she states that she has subjected herself to Graham’s permit system, but is concerned that her request may be denied under the Ordinance’s subjective standards, and also that the delay caused by waiting for the City’s response will limit attendance and hinder her planned protest. She also plans to protest at the Confederate monument on July 4, 2020, despite fears she will be harassed or arrested.
Plaintiff Colleen Tenae Turner grew up in Alamance County and went to school in Graham. She asserts that she would like to be able to gather with others and protest there to raise her concerns with racism in Graham, to express support for Black lives, and advocate for removal of the Confederate monument. She sought a permit for a protest in Graham on June 27, 2020, but Graham Police Department Assistant Chief Kristy Cole denied her request in part because the protest might interfere with the orderly movement of individuals and with property owners’ rights to “enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property,” might divert excessive police from other necessary duties, and might “further enhance the fear and concerns that [local business owners] have.” Following that denial, she sought a permit for a smaller gathering on that same day. Assistant Chief Cole denied that request as well, on the basis of a State of Emergency order that the City has since rescinded. Plaintiff Turner testifies that she intends to continue her attempts to organize permitted protests, but is concerned that the City will continue to stifle her efforts
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 20

and silence her voice. She would also like to be able to protest spontaneously at the monument this July 4, 2020.
Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera planned to attend the June 27, 2020 protest for which Ms. Turner sought a permit because she opposes the continued presence of the Confederate monument in downtown Graham, which she sees as a representation of murder, inequality, and racism. After learning that the City denied Ms. Turner’s permit, Ms. Rivera decided to go to downtown Graham and protest by herself. While in Graham, she met a group of friends for lunch. As they were walking back to one woman’s car, they were stopped by Graham police officers who told them they could not protest and that, if they started to protest, the officers would order them to leave. Plaintiff Rivera and her friends left briefly and then walked back along the same path. That time, the officers ordered them to disperse, though Plaintiff Rivera, who is Latina, asserts that the police allowed a group of white people with Confederate flags to congregate across the road. Plaintiff Rivera states that she would like to spontaneously protest with a small group on the public sidewalks near the monument in Graham this Fourth of July weekend, but is unable to do so due to the Ordinance’s advance permit requirement.
Plaintiff Destiny Clarke lives near Graham and has sought to demonstrate in the City to protest white supremacy, support the Black Lives Matter movement, and oppose the Confederate monument near the Alamance Courthouse. On June 28, 2020, Plaintiff Clarke walked alone in downtown Graham, silently carrying a “Black Lives Matter” sign. As she neared the courthouse square, a City officer stopped her, told her that protesting is prohibited, and threatened to arrest her if she did not leave the area. Concerned that she
6
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 20

would be arrested for exercising her First Amendment rights, Plaintiff Clarke offered to throw away her sign, and subsequently did so. The officer then left. Ms. Clarke wants to continue protesting in Graham, but is reasonably concerned that she may be arrested or fined for doing so.
Plaintiff Terence Colin Dodd asserts that he approached the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse around 6:00am on Saturday, June 27, 2020 with a poster that read “Black Lives Matter.” He alleges that one of Defendant Sheriff Terry Johnson’s deputies was in a squad car parked beside the monument at the crosswalk. As Plaintiff Dodd approached the monument with his sign, the deputy got out of the car, walked toward Plaintiff Dodd and ordered him to step back. Plaintiff Dodd asked the deputy to explain the ordinance or other legal authority that permitted him to prevent Plaintiff Dodd from demonstrating at the Confederate monument on the Historic Courthouse steps. According to Plaintiff Dodd, the deputy did not answer him, but instead called on his radio for backup. A half dozen squad cars and eight to ten Sheriff deputies subsequently arrived, causing Plaintiff Dodd to feel fearful. Graham police officers then arrived and told Plaintiff Dodd that he could not be on County property but could walk on the sidewalk across the street from the Confederate monument so long as he was alone, not with a group. Because he did not want to get arrested, Plaintiff Dodd obeyed the officers and the deputies and walked alone on the sidewalk with his sign until close to 10:00am, when he left.
Plaintiff Annie Simpson is a resident of Concord, North Carolina who asserts that she has sought to organize protests in downtown Graham at the Alamance Courthouse to
7
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 20

protest white supremacy, support the Black Lives Matter movement, and oppose the Confederate Monument situated there. On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff Annie Simpson called the GPD to inquire about how to apply for a permit to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. Assistant Chief Cole informed Plaintiff Simpson that she would have to submit written permission from the Alamance County Manager’s Office along with her application for demonstration permit in order to hold a permitted demonstration at the Historic Courthouse. That same day, Plaintiff Simpson called the Alamance County Manager’s Office to inquire about the process of acquiring a permit to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. Plaintiff Simpson says she was told by the County Manager’s Office that no protests are allowed on courthouse grounds.
Plaintiff Adam Rose asserts that he became concerned about police and governmental overreaction to peaceful protests in Graham in early June 2020. On June 26, 2020 Plaintiff Rose filed an application for a permit to demonstrate at Historic Courthouse Square. Plaintiff Rose indicated he planned to attend with 5 others on June 28 for a two-hour period. On June 27, Plaintiff Rose was informed by Assistant Chief Cole that his permit had been denied, and that no permits would be issued for an indefinite period of time.
Plaintiff Gregory Drumwright grew up just outside the city limits of Graham, and still has family living there. He is a social justice activist and organizer, university professor and Senior Minister at the Citadel Church in Greensboro, North Carolina where he now lives. Although Plaintiff Drumwright subjected himself to Graham’s permit system for a
8
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 20

racial justice demonstration at the Historic Courthouse square on July 11, the City Assistant Manager informed him that Defendant Peterman has disallowed the issuance of any permits for protests. Plaintiff Drumwright plans to go to the Courthouse square without seeking a permit on July 4, 2020 to peacefully protest with other community members.
On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. That same date, they filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
ANALYSIS To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of their claims; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; the equities favor a temporary restraining order; and a temporary restraining order serves the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs present three arguments: (1) The Ordinance is a content-based restriction that does cannot survive strict scrutiny; (2) the Ordinance is an impermissible prior restraint on speech; (3) the Ordinance’s restrictions excessively burden speech and are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and (4) the Ordinance is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause. The Court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on all four of these claims. A. Content-based restriction
9
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 20

The First Amendment prohibits the government from “defin[ing] regulated speech by its function or purpose.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015). A law is “content-based [if] it applie[s] or [does] not apply as a result of content, that is, ‘the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” Cent. Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, 811 F.3d 625, 633 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Reed, 576 U.S. at 163). “[T]he Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality,” Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 660 (2004) (internal citations omitted), by establishing that “the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 171.
Here, the Ordinance is content-based. The Ordinance specifically regulates those who assemble “for the purpose of protesting.” Chapter 18, Art. VI § 18-172. And it expressly exempts funeral processions, students going to educational activities, and government agencies. Id. § 18-173. Therefore, the Ordinance must survive strict scrutiny. The Court finds that it likely does not. The text of the Ordinance shows it is aimed at limiting protest. See, e.g., id. § 18-172 (defining “group demonstration” specifically to include those “protesting any matter”). That is not a legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest.
Even if the City’s interest in the Ordinance were compelling, the ban on any protest, assembly, and parades by any individual or group anywhere in the City without a permit would violate the Constitution because it is not narrowly tailored. As the Supreme Court
10
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 20

has recognized, a total ban on expression on public sidewalks does not substantially serve any government purpose. See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 182 (1983).
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Cox v. City of Charleston is instructive. There, the court struck down a city ordinance similar to this one on First Amendment grounds. The ordinance made it illegal to “organize, hold or participate in any parade, meeting, exhibition, assembly, or procession . . . on the streets or sidewalks of the city” without a permit. 416 F.3d 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). While recognizing that “it may be true that the permit requirement succeeds in mitigating the potential of any of the activities listed in the Ordinance to threaten the safety, order, and accessibility of city streets and sidewalks,” the Fourth Circuit held that “it does so at too high a cost, namely, by significantly restricting a substantial quantity of speech that does not impede the City’s permissible goals.” Id. at 285 (alterations, marks, and citation omitted). Recognizing this lack of tailoring, the Fourth Circuit held “that the Ordinance ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests,’ and therefore facially violates the First Amendment.” Id. (Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989)). The court also held that “the unflinching application of the Ordinance to groups as small as two or three renders it constitutionally infirm” and that “[s]pontaneous expression, which is often the most effective kind of expression, is prohibited by the Ordinance,” id. at 285–86 (alterations omitted).
Here, the Graham Ordinance appears to share those constitutional infirmities, which highlight the lack of sufficient tailoring. Accordingly, the Court finds it likely that the Ordinance violates the Constitution as a content-based restriction on speech.
11
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 20

B. Prior restraint While the Supreme Court has approved reasonable permit requirements for large
demonstrations, Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941), “any system of prior restraints” bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). “An ordinance that requires individuals or groups to obtain a permit before engaging in protected speech is a prior restraint on speech” and “the City bears the burden of proving its constitutionality.” Cox v. City of Charleston, 416 F.3d 281, 284 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
“[A] law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-51 (1969). “It is settled [. . .] than an ordinance which [. . .] makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional [. . .] prior restraint.” Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 (1958)). Applying this standard in Shuttlesworth, the Supreme Court invalidated an Alabama law that, much like the Ordinance, required a permit for “any parade or procession or other public demonstration.” 394 U.S. at 149. There, much like here, the licensing authority could deny a permit if in “its judgment, the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be
12
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 20

refused.” Id. at 149-50. The Court held that this gave the administrator “virtually unbridled and absolute power.” Id. at 150.
Here, the Graham Ordinance requires a permit for any “parade, picket line or group demonstration” gathering “for the purpose of protesting any matter.” Ch. 18, Art. VI §§ 18-172, 175. The Police Chief has discretion to deny a permit if it endangers “the public health or safety,” hinders “orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,” id. § 18178(2), or is likely to “create a public disturbance,” id. § 18-179(3). Moreover, the Police Chief may limit gatherings to six people in areas with “normally heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic,” or set another higher number if “in his judgment, conditions permit” it. Id. § 18-181. The Ordinance does not provide notice for how long the permit review process will take or to require the government to provide a justification when a permit is denied.
Plaintiffs argue that the Ordinance invites discriminatory enforcement against disfavored views by authorizing the Police Chief to deny a permit where, in their judgment, a proposed assembly will “require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties,” without any objective standards. Plaintiffs further argue that this provision allows the government to suppress views that officials fear will draw large crowds either of supporters or counter-demonstrators, and they plausibly contend that they have in fact been threatened and prohibited from protesting because of their support for racial justice and equality. Accordingly, the Court finds it likely that the Ordinance places a prior restraint on free speech in violation of the First Amendment.
C. Excessive Burdening of Protected Speech 13
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 20

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Ordinance also likely violates the First Amendment by burdening Plaintiffs’ speech with restrictions on their rights to gather and protest publicly that are not reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions. The Ordinance regulates speech in traditional public forums such streets, sidewalks, and parks. These places have “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thought between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. Comm. for Indust. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In such spaces, the government may only impose “reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)).
“To prove that a content-neutral restriction on protected speech is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest . . . the government is obliged to demonstrate that it actually tried or considered less-speech-restrictive alternatives and that such alternatives were inadequate to serve the government’s interest.” Billups v. City of Charleston, 961 F.3d 673, 688 (4th Cir. 2020). “Absent such a showing, [courts] cannot simply accept the City’s assurances that those other ordinances would be too difficult to enforce or would not sufficiently safeguard its interest.” Id. at 689. “Rather than enforcing a prior restraint on protected expression, cities can enforce ordinances prohibiting and punishing conduct that disturbs the peace, blocks the sidewalks, or impedes the flow of
14
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 20

traffic.” Cox, 416 F.3d at 286. “Cities can also pass ordinances that ‘regulate only the volume, location, or duration of [protected] expression,’ rather than subjecting all speech to a permit requirement.” Id. (quoting Community for Creative Nonviolence v. Turner, 893 F.2d 1387, 1393 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). “At bottom, the legislative body can enact a permit requirement that burdens expression only to the extent necessary to effectuate the city’s significant interests, and no more so.” Id. at 287.
Here, as noted above, the Ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. The Ordinance presumptively bans all protest and assembly absent government permission everywhere in the City, without any attempt to tailor the restriction to, for example, the level of traffic in a particular place. And because the Ordinance prohibits any expressive assembly or parade anywhere in the City without 24 hours advance notice to and permission from Defendants—and allow the City police to “establish lines for separation of the general public from [protest] activity,” thereby impermissibly removing land from traditional public forum status at their whim—it does not provide alternative channels for communication. Finally, because the Ordinance allows the Chief to limit gatherings to six people for every hundred feet, it functionally bars any mass protest or assembly.
Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the Ordinance excessively burdens their speech in violation of the First Amendment.
D. Void for vagueness “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its
prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 15
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 20

(1972). Due process requires clarity in statutes and ordinances for two reasons. First, a vague law “fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015), and second, it invites “arbitrary and discriminatory application” by failing to provide “explicit standards for those [government actors] who apply [it].” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108-09. This principle applies to administrative, civil, and criminal prohibitions. See, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253–54 (2012) (civil fines); Gentile v. State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030, 1048– 51 (1991), (state bar rule); United States v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 128 F.3d 216, 224 (4th Cir. 1997) (environmental regulations).
Where First Amendment rights are at stake, it is especially important that laws are clear. See Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. at 253–54. Vague laws threaten to chill speech because they “inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, clarity is required “based in part on the need to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, for history shows that speech is suppressed when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1051 (citations omitted).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws that turn on terms such as “disturbing the peace” are void for vagueness. In Cox v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a statute that prohibited “congregating with others with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned.” 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965) (marks and citation omitted). Breach of the peace
16
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 20

statutes are impermissibly vague because they condition legality on the reaction of the
speakers’ critics, making it impossible for speakers to predict whether they will be
punished for their constitutionally protected speech. See id. at 552.
Fifty years ago, the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina struck
down another North Carolina city ordinance that was nearly identical to the Ordinance at
issue here as void for vagueness. Underwood v. City Council of Greenville, 316 F. Supp.
956 (E.D.N.C. 1970). In that case, the ordinance read:
[T]he chief of police . . . may refuse to issue a permit to march, parade, assemble, picket or demonstrate in any way when and if he determines that said activity would either constitute a clear and present danger to the public health or safety or would ‘hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the streets, alleys, or sidewalks.’ Further the chief or his designee may specify whether or not minors will be allowed to participate . . .
[A]mong other considerations, [the chief may] consider and find as a requisite to issuance the following:
(1) the activity will not require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties;
(2) the activity will not interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful and lawful occupancy and use of their property;
(3) the activity can be conducted without unreasonable interference with normal pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area, and will not prevent normal police and fire protection to the public, and will not be likely to cause injury to persons or property or to provoke disorderly conduct or to create a public disturbance.
17
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 17 of 20

Id. at 960. The court held that it was “[c]lear[]” that this law—which is nearly identical to the Ordinance—was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to give notice as to what is considered a permissible assembly, and it failed to cabin the police chief’s discretion. Id.
Here, neither the Police Chief nor Plaintiffs can know whether their acts will provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance. Like the ordinance declared void for vagueness in Underwood, the Ordinance enables the Chief of Police to “[r]efuse to issue [a] permit . . . when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety,” Chapter 18, Art VI § 18-178(2), and permits are allowed only when the protest “will not interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy” and “will not be likely to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance.” Id. § 18-179(2)–(3). As in Cox and Underwood, it is unclear how speakers or the Police Chief will know whether a demonstration will be likely to create a public disturbance or provoke disorderly conduct.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Due Process claim as well.
II. Irreparable Injury “[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”  Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). As the Court finds Plaintiffs likely to prevail on their First Amendment claims, the Court finds them likely to suffer irreparable injury as well. Plaintiffs’ injury is particularly imminent and immediate preliminary injunctive relief is necessary because several Plaintiffs state that they intend to protest this weekend and fear being unable to lawfully
18
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 18 of 20

protest or threatened with arrest if they do so without a permit. For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to issue this Order immediately and without notice to Defendant.
III. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest While Plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable injury without preliminary relief,
Defendants will not be harmed by issuance of a TRO. See Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002) (injunction of a likely unconstitutional law does not harm the state). Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has held that upholding constitutional rights “surely serves” the public interest. Id. Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied these factors.
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby RESTRAINED from enforcing the Ordinance. In the Court’s discretion, the bond requirement under Rule 65(c) is waived. This Order shall be in effect for 14 days. The Court will continue to review Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and will set a hearing prior to the expiration of this Order as it deems appropriate. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with notice of this Order and Defendants shall immediately provide Notice to their officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them.
This the ___ day of July, 2020, at ______________ AM/PM
19
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 19 of 20

__________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 2-10 Filed 07/02/20 Page 20 of 20

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. ____________ ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
NATURE OF THIS ACTION Plaintiffs challenge and seek preliminary relief against enforcement of Chapter 18, Art. VI of the City of Graham (“City”), North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to gather with anyone else, or even walk on their own, “for the purpose of protesting” or “making known any position or thought” anywhere in the City without first obtaining the Chief of Police’s permission at least 24 hours in advance. It grants the Chief discretion to deny a permit application based on vague and, in effect, content- and viewpoint-based standards. It bans the exercise of any speech or assembly rights by minors unless they obtain the discretionary permission of the Chief. And it allows the Chief to limit even permitted gatherings to six people and order their dispersal upon any violation of the permit, no matter how small.

1
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 1 of 26

The Ordinance unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiffs and countless others who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, and associate in Graham. This includes individuals who, like Plaintiffs, have been moved by the recent killing of George Floyd and the broader reality of police brutality around the country, and who seek to protest the continued presence of Confederate monuments on government property, including at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in the middle of Graham.
The Ordinance targets expression and is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling government interest. In addition, it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint. It thus violates the First Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. The Ordinance is also impermissibly vague in violation of due process. By forcing Plaintiffs to choose between forgoing their constitutional rights or facing the threat of sanctions or arrest, the Ordinance imposes ongoing, irreparable harm on Plaintiffs. Indeed, the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical ordinance more than 50 years ago in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969); the Eastern District of North Carolina did the same only one year later, see Underwood v. City Council of Greenville, 316 F. Supp. 956 (E.D.N.C. 1970); and the Fourth Circuit did so just 15 years ago, see Cox v. City of Charleston, 416 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2005). This Court should do the same and enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 2 of 26

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. The Ordinance
The Ordinance provides that “[n]o parade, picket line or group demonstration is
permitted on the sidewalks or streets of the city unless a permit therefor has been issued by the city.” Ch.18, Art. VI. § 18-175.1 It defines group demonstration as “any assembly
together or concert of action between two or more persons for the purpose of protesting
any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention
thereto”; defines parade as “any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition or procession
of any kind in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places”; and
defines picket line as “any persons formed together for the purpose of making known any position or promotion of said persons or on behalf of any organization.” Id. § 18-172.2
To run the permit scheme, the Ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police to, in
relevant part,
(1) Require a written application . . . to be filed 24 hours in advance of such parade, picket line or group demonstration . . .
(2) Refuse to issue such permit when the activity or purpose stated in the application would violate any ordinance of the city or statute of the state, or when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety, or hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the sidewalks or streets of the city.
1 The full text of the ordinance is available through the City of Graham’s website at https://library.municode.com/nc/graham/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_ CH18STSIOTPUPL_ARTVIPADEPE. 2 The Ordinance specifically exempts “funeral processions,” “students going to and from school classes or participating in [supervised] educational activities,” and “governmental agenc[ies] acting within the scope of [their] functions.” Id. § 18-173.
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 3 of 26

(3) Specify in the permit whether or not minors below the age of 18 years will be permitted to participate. The chief of police or, in his absence, the next highest ranking police officer of the city on duty shall pass upon whether or not minors below the age of 18 years shall be permitted to participate . . . and shall base his determination upon whether or not the purpose, time or place of the participation will be detrimental to or endanger the health, welfare or safety of said minors.
Id. § 18-178. In addition, the Ordinance provides that, before issuing a permit, the Chief of
Police or other designated officer must, “among other considerations provided,” find that the activity will not (1) “require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties”; (2) “interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”; or (3) “unreasonabl[y] interfere[] with normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area, . . . prevent normal police or fire protection to the public, [or] . . . be likely to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance.” Id. § 18-179.
If the Chief grants the permit, he then has complete discretion to limit the protest or other gathering to “not more than six persons . . . [in] the entire width of [the] street or sidewalk within . . . 100 feet.” Id. § 18-181. During a permitted parade, demonstration, or picket, he also has discretion to “establish lines for separation of the general public from such [protest] activity” and make it “unlawful for any person to . . . cross such lines.” Id. § 18-174. And he can order individuals to disperse upon a violation of any of the terms of the permit. Id. § 18-176. If individuals fail to disperse, they may be arrested under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.5.
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 4 of 26

The Ordinance also makes it illegal for any minor to be present at an expressive gathering without explicit permission from the Chief—and it authorizes him to deny such permission upon his own determination that attending would be “detrimental to or endanger [the minor’s] health, welfare or safety.” Ch. 18, Art. VI §§ 18-177, 178. Each violation of the Ordinance is “punishable as a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not to exceed $500.” Ch. 1 § 1-12.
II. Plaintiffs’ Protests Plaintiffs regularly seek to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, assemble, and associate in Graham to speak out against institutionalized racism and white supremacy, police violence against Black people, and the continued presence of the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse (“Confederate Monument”) in the City’s town square. Because of the Ordinance, however, Plaintiffs have been chilled from and threatened with arrest for exercising their rights. Plaintiff Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) and its members seek to protest racialized police violence and the Confederate Monument. NAACP Decl. ¶ 4. Due to the Ordinance, NAACP has been forced to divert resources to assess, plan for, and educate its members about public assemblies and demonstrations in Graham, including by applying for a permit to protest the Confederate Monument, racialized policing of their community, unjust and unequal treatment by Alamance courts and law enforcement officers of Black individuals, and police brutality. Id. ¶ 7. The NAACP is concerned that its request may be denied under
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 5 of 26

the Ordinance’s subjective standards, and also that the delay caused by waiting for the City’s response will limit attendance and hinder planning for their protest. Id. ¶ 8.
Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey, a Black woman who is from Graham, has attended vigils and rallies elsewhere in Alamance County to protest racist police brutality in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, but she has not protested in her hometown. Kersey Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 7. The Ordinance has placed her in reasonable fear of being sanctioned for doing so without a permit. Id. ¶ 4. Rather than forgo exercising her constitutional rights, she has subjected herself to Graham’s permit system, but, like the NAACP, she is concerned that her request may be denied under the Ordinance’s subjective standards, and also that the delay caused by waiting for the City’s response will limit attendance and hinder her planned protest. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8–9.
Plaintiff Gregory Drumwright is a Black man who grew up just outside the city limits of Graham, North Carolina and still has family living there. Drumwright Decl. ¶ 2. He is a social justice activist and organizer, university professor, and Senior Minister at the Citadel Church in Greensboro, North Carolina where he now lives. Although Plaintiff Drumwright subjected himself to Graham’s permit system to seek permission for a racial justice demonstration at the Historic Courthouse square on July 11, the City Assistant Manager informed him that Defendant Peterman has disallowed the issuance of any permits for protests. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff Drumwright plans to go to the Courthouse square without seeking a permit on July 4, 2020 to peacefully protest with other community members. Id. ¶ 7.
6
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 6 of 26

Plaintiff Colleen Tenae Turner, a 23-year-old Black woman, grew up in Alamance County and went to school in Graham. Turner Decl. ¶ 2. She recalls joyously marching around the court square as a member of her school’s marching band; but now that she would like to raise her concerns with racism in Graham, express support for Black lives, and advocate for removal of the Confederate Monument, she finds herself far less free to speak out due to the Ordinance. Id. ¶¶ 2–6. In this moment, she would like to gather with others because such assemblies have granted her relief and comfort in the past. Id. ¶¶ 3, 17–18. She sought a permit to do precisely that in Graham on June 24, 2020, but Defendants denied her request in part because Defendants believe the protest might (1) interfere with property owners’ rights to “enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property,” (2) divert excessive police from other necessary duties, and (3) “further enhance the fear and concerns that [local business owners] have.” Id. ¶ 9.
Following Defendants’ denial, Plaintiff Turner sought a permit on June 27, 2020 a smaller gathering of eight people, including a minor, for the next day. Id. ¶¶ 10–12. Defendants denied that request as well, on the basis of an unfounded State of Emergency order that the City has since rescinded. Id. ¶ 15. This Fourth of July weekend, Plaintiff Turner would like to be able to spontaneously assemble with a group of less than 10 people and walk along the public sidewalks of Graham and protest, without seeking a permit. Id. ¶ 17. She intends to continue her attempts to organize permitted protests, but is reasonably concerned that the City will continue to stifle her efforts and silence her voice. Id. ¶¶ 17– 18.
7
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 7 of 26

Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera is a 59-year-old Latina woman who had planned to attend the June 27, 2020 protest for which Plaintiff Turner sought a permit. She opposes the continued presence of the Confederate Monument, which she sees as a representation of murder, inequality, and racism. Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 1–5. After learning that the City denied Plaintiff Turner’s permit and subsequently suspended the issuance of all permits under the baseless State of Emergency order that has since been rescinded, Plaintiff Rivera decided to go to downtown Graham and protest by herself. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. While in Graham, she met a group of other activists for lunch. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. As they were walking back to one woman’s car in pairs, socially distancing on the sidewalk, they were stopped by officers who told them they could not protest and that, if they started to protest, the officers would order them to leave. Id. ¶¶ 11–16. Plaintiff Rivera and her fellow activists left briefly and then walked back along the same path. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. That time, the officers ordered them to disperse, although they allowed a group of white people with Confederate flags to congregate across the road. Id. ¶¶ 19–21.
This Fourth of July weekend, Plaintiff Rivera would like to be able to spontaneously protest with a small group on the public sidewalks near the monument in Graham, but is unable to do so due to the Ordinance’s advance permit requirement. Id. Decl. ¶¶ 23–24.
Plaintiff Destiny Clarke is a 27-year-old white woman who lives near Graham and has sought to demonstrate in the City to protest white supremacy, support the Black Lives Matter movement, and oppose the Confederate Monument. Clarke Decl. ¶¶ 9, 15. On June 28, 2020, Ms. Clarke walked alone in downtown Graham, silently carrying a “Black Lives
8
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 8 of 26

Matter” sign. Id. ¶¶ 3–4. As she neared the courthouse square, a City officer stopped her, told her that protesting is prohibited, and threatened to arrest her if she did not leave the area. Id. ¶¶ 4–7. Concerned that she would be arrested for exercising her First Amendment rights, Ms. Clarke offered to throw away her sign, and subsequently did so. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. The officer then left. Ms. Clarke wants to continue protesting in Graham, but is reasonably concerned that she may be arrested or fined for doing so. Id. ¶¶ 13–15.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do Plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claims that:
a. the Ordinance violates the First Amendment?; b. the Ordinance violates the Due Process Clause? 2. Do Plaintiffs satisfy the other requirements for preliminary injunctive relief?
ARGUMENT To obtain a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of their claims; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is not granted; the equities favor preliminary injunctive relief; and such relief serves the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 452 F.3d 275, 281 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006) (substantive standard for temporary restraining order is same as for preliminary injunction). Plaintiffs satisfy each of these requirements. I. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
9
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 9 of 26

Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success because the Ordinance imposes a contentbased restriction on their protected speech, assembly, and association in a manner that is not tailored to any valid state interest. In addition, it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint because it vests Defendants with sweeping discretion to suppress speech and is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. The Ordinance is also void for vagueness.
A. The Ordinance violates the First Amendment. i. The Ordinance is a content-based law that fails strict scrutiny.
“[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964). The First Amendment was designed “to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957). And it reflects our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues”—including police brutality, racism in government institutions, and the presence of Confederate monuments on government land— “should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open[.]” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 270. Such speech “is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74–75 (1964). Political protest “has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980).
Rather than recognize the value of free speech in a democracy, the Ordinance attempts to suppress it—and it does so in a content-based manner. The First Amendment
10
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 10 of 26

prohibits the government from “defin[ing] regulated speech by its function or purpose.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015). Yet that is precisely what the Ordinance does by specifically regulating those who assemble “for the purpose of protesting or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto.” Ch. 18, Art. VI § 18-172. And it expressly exempts funeral processions, students going to educational activities, and government agencies. Id. § 18-173. “On its face, the [Ordinance is] content-based because it applie[s] or [does] not apply as a result of content, that is, ‘the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” Cent. Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, 811 F.3d 625, 633 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Reed, 576 U.S. at 163).
Plaintiffs’ experience bears this out: Defendants told Ms. Rivera that she could not walk in pairs with others in protest but could walk with them to get to her car. See Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 11–16. And Defendants threatened to arrest Ms. Clarke while she was walking down the street carrying a “Black Lives Matter” sign, but left after she threw her sign away. See Clarke Decl. ¶¶ 4–10.
“[T]he Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality,” Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 660 (2004) (citations omitted), by establishing that “the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 171. Defendants cannot satisfy this standard. It is clear from the face of the Ordinance that the only interest served by the law is silencing
11
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 11 of 26

protest, see, e.g., Ch. 18, Art. VI § 18-172 (defining “group demonstration” specifically to include those “protesting any matter”). That is plainly impermissible.
Even if the City’s interest in the Ordinance were compelling, the ban on any protest, assembly, and parade by any individual or group anywhere in the City without a permit would violate the Constitution because it is not tailored to that interest. As the Supreme Court has recognized, a total ban on expression on public sidewalks does not substantially serve any government purpose. See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 182 (1983).
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Cox v. City of Charleston is particularly instructive on this point. There, the court struck down a city ordinance remarkably like the one at issue here on First Amendment grounds. That ordinance made it illegal to “organize, hold or participate in any parade, meeting, exhibition, assembly, or procession . . . on the streets or sidewalks of the city” without a permit. Cox, 416 F.3d at 283. While recognizing that “it may be true that the permit requirement succeeds in mitigating the potential of any of the activities listed in the Ordinance to threaten the safety, order, and accessibility of city streets and sidewalks,” the Fourth Circuit held that “it does so at too high a cost, namely, by significantly restricting a substantial quantity of speech that does not impede the City’s permissible goals.” Id. at 285 (alterations, marks, and citation omitted).
The Fourth Circuit set forth a series of hypotheticals to highlight the troubling reach of that ordinance, each of which is equally applicable here: “Consider three friends who are walking along the sidewalk in downtown . . . They come upon a newspaper stand displaying a headline that outrages them. So moved by the headline, they walk to the end
12
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 12 of 26

of the street and hold up handmade signs protesting the headline.” Under the Ordinance, their expression is illegal even if it “does nothing to disturb the peace, block the sidewalk, or interfere with traffic.” Id. at 286. “Similarly, the Ordinance criminalizes a small meeting of individuals who gather on the sidewalk [downtown] . . . to hand out religious tracts without first obtaining a permit, even if their expression does nothing to disturb or disrupt the flow of sidewalk traffic.” Id. “Indeed, any group of individuals who gather together on the sidewalks for a ‘meeting’ or ‘assembly’—no matter how innocuous—is in violation of the Ordinance unless the group first obtains a permit from the city administrator.” Id.
Recognizing this lack of tailoring, the Fourth Circuit held “that the Ordinance ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests,’ and therefore facially violates the First Amendment.” Id. (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (1989)). The same reasoning applies to the Ordinance at issue here.
In addition, the Fourth Circuit held that “the unflinching application of the Ordinance to groups as small as two or three renders it constitutionally infirm” and that “[s]pontaneous expression, which is often the most effective kind of expression, is prohibited by the Ordinance,” id. at 285–86 (alterations omitted). The Ordinance also shares those constitutional infirmities, which further highlight the insufficient tailoring.
ii. The Ordinance is an unconstitutional prior restraint. While the Supreme Court has approved reasonable permit requirements for large demonstrations, Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941), “any system of prior
13
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 13 of 26

restraints” bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963). The Fourth Circuit has stated unequivocally that “[a]n ordinance that requires individuals or groups to obtain a permit before engaging in protected speech is a prior restraint on speech” and “the City bears the burden of proving its constitutionality.” Cox, 416 F.3d at 284 (citations omitted).
Decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that “a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional.” Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 150–51. “It is settled . . . that an ordinance which . . . makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional . . . prior restraint.” Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 (1958). See also Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 133 (1992).
Applying this standard in Shuttlesworth, the Supreme Court invalidated an Alabama law that, much like the Ordinance, required a permit for “any parade or procession or other public demonstration,” 394 U.S. at 149, and enabled the licensing authority to deny a permit if, in “its judgment[,] the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that it be refused,” id. at 149–50. The Court held that this was unconstitutional because it gave the administrator “virtually unbridled and absolute power.” Id. at 150.
14
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 14 of 26

The Graham Ordinance is no different. It requires a permit for any “parade, picket line or group demonstration” gathering “for the purpose of protesting any matter.” Ch. 18, Art. VI §§ 18-172, 175. The Police Chief has discretion to deny a permit if he believes the parade, picket line, or demonstration endangers “the public health or safety,” hinders “orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,” id. § 18-178(2), or is likely to “create a public disturbance,” id. § 18-179(3). Moreover, the Police Chief may limit gatherings to six people in areas with “normally heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic,” or set another higher number if “in his judgment, conditions permit” him to do so.
Indeed, the standards governing consideration of permits in the Ordinance are even more constitutionally suspect than those at issue in Shuttlesworth. The Ordinance invites discriminatory enforcement against disfavored views by authorizing the Police Chief to deny a permit where, in his judgment, a proposed assembly will “require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties,” without any objective standards. This provision allows the government to suppress views that officials fear will draw large crowds either of supporters or counter-demonstrators.
In Forsyth, the Supreme Court squarely rejected such a basis for regulation, holding that the government cannot burden assemblies because “a controversial political message” will be “delivered before a hostile audience.” 505 U.S. at 136. Instead, the Supreme Court struck down a permit fee requirement that covered “the cost of maintaining public order” because it gave the administrator too much discretion. Id. at 134. As the Supreme Court explained, such a standard is based on “the public’s reaction to the speech” and is therefore
15
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 15 of 26

an impermissible justification for denying the right to protest. Id. Here, such a standard is used not to impose a fee, but to ban expression entirely.
In Graham, the Ordinance is not only susceptible to discriminatory application, but it has in fact repeatedly been used to threaten Plaintiffs and prohibit them from protesting because of their support for racial justice and equality. See, e.g., Clarke Decl. ¶¶ 9–13; Rivera Decl. ¶¶ 19–22; Turner Decl. ¶¶ 17–18.
In addition, the Ordinance is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it fails to provide notice or standards regarding how long the permit review process will take, or to require the government to provide a justification when a permit is denied. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58–60 (1965). These infirmities have hindered Plaintiffs in planning protests even when they have chosen to submit applications to the unconstitutional scheme. See NAACP Decl ¶ 8; Kersey Decl. ¶ 9.
iii. The Ordinance is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.
Even if the Ordinance were viewed as content-neutral, it would nevertheless violate the First Amendment. The Ordinance regulates speech in traditional public forums— streets, sidewalks, and parks, which have “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thought between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. Comm. for Indust. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In such spaces, the government may only impose “reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they
16
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 16 of 26

are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)).
To satisfy this standard, “the government is obliged to demonstrate that it actually tried or considered less-speech-restrictive alternatives and that such alternatives were inadequate to serve the government’s interest.” Billups v. City of Charleston, 961 F.3d 673, 688 (4th Cir. 2020). “Absent such a showing, [courts] cannot simply accept the City’s assurances that those other ordinances would be too difficult to enforce or would not sufficiently safeguard its interest.” Id. at 689. Defendants cannot make such a showing here.
As noted above, the Ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. See Part I.A.i supra. The Ordinance presumptively bans all protest and assembly absent government permission everywhere in the City, without any attempt to tailor the restriction to, for example, the level of traffic in a particular place. “Rather than enforcing a prior restraint on protected expression, cities can enforce ordinances prohibiting and punishing conduct that disturbs the peace, blocks the sidewalks, or impedes the flow of traffic.” Cox, 416 F.3d at 286. “Cities can also pass ordinances that ‘regulate only the volume, location, or duration of [protected] expression,’ rather than subjecting all speech to a permit requirement.” Id. (quoting Community for Creative Nonviolence v. Turner, 893 F.2d 1387, 1393 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). “At bottom, the legislative body can enact a permit requirement that burdens expression only to the extent necessary to effectuate the
17
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 17 of 26

city's significant interests, and no more so.” Id. at 287. That is far from what the City has done here.
Equally, because the Ordinance prohibits any expressive assembly or parade anywhere in the City without 24 hours advance notice to and permission from Defendants, and because it grants Defendants discretion “to establish lines for separation of the general public from [protest] activity,” essentially removing traditional public forum status from public land at Defendants’ whim, it fails to leave open ample alternative channels for communication. In addition, because the Ordinance allows the Chief to limit gatherings to six people for every hundred feet—that is, the length of a nine-story building—it can serve as a functional bar to any mass protest or assembly, period.
B. The Ordinance is void for vagueness. “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). Due process requires clarity for two reasons. First, a vague law “fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2556 (2015), and second, it invites “arbitrary and discriminatory application” by failing to provide “explicit standards for those [government actors] who apply [it].” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108–09. This principle applies to administrative, civil, and criminal prohibitions. See, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253–54 (2012) (civil fines); Gentile v. State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030, 1048–51 (1991) (state bar rule); United
18
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 18 of 26

States v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 128 F.3d 216, 224 (4th Cir. 1997) (environmental regulations).
Where First Amendment rights are at stake, it is especially important that laws are clear. See Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. at 253–54; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573 (1974); see also Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1228–29 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Vague laws threaten to chill speech because they “inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109 (marks and citation omitted). Moreover, clarity is required “based in part on the need to eliminate the impermissible risk of discriminatory enforcement, for history shows that speech is suppressed when either the speaker or the message is critical of those who enforce the law.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1051 (citations omitted). That danger is particularly stark where, as here, Plaintiffs aim to join a worldwide movement specifically addressing their grievances about those who enforce the law.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that laws that, like the Ordinance, turn on terms such as “disturbing the peace,” are void for vagueness. See, e.g., Ch. 18, Art. VI § 18-179 (conditioning police issuance of permit on determination of whether the protest is likely to “provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance”). In Cox v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a statute that prohibited “congregating with others with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned.” 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965) (marks and citation omitted); accord Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 527 (1972)
19
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 19 of 26

(holding a “breach of the peace” statute void for vagueness); Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940) (same).
In Cox v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that breach of the peace statutes are
impermissibly vague because they condition legality on the reaction of the speakers’ critics,
making it impossible for speakers to predict whether they will be punished for their
constitutionally protected speech. See 379 U.S. at 552; see also Terminiello v. City of
Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4–5 (1949). The same is true here. Neither the police chief nor
Plaintiffs can know whether their acts will provoke disorderly conduct or create a public
disturbance. That is up to their listeners, including critics. This Court should not sanction
such a heckler’s veto.
Indeed, fifty years ago, the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
struck down another North Carolina city ordinance that was nearly identical to the
Ordinance at issue here as void for vagueness. Underwood v. City Council of Greenville,
316 F. Supp. 956 (E.D.N.C. 1970). In that case, the ordinance read:
[T]he chief of police . . . may refuse to issue a permit to march, parade, assemble, picket or demonstrate in any way when and if he determines that said activity would either constitute a clear and present danger to the public health or safety or would ‘hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the streets, alleys, or sidewalks.’ Further the chief or his designee may specify whether or not minors will be allowed to participate . . .
[A]mong other considerations, [the chief may] consider and find as a requisite to issuance the following:
(1) the activity will not require excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties;
20
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 20 of 26

(2) the activity will not interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful and lawful occupancy and use of their property;
(3) the activity can be conducted without unreasonable interference with normal pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area, and will not prevent normal police and fire protection to the public, and will not be likely to cause injury to persons or property or to provoke disorderly conduct or to create a public disturbance.
Id. at 960. The court held that it was “[c]lear[]” that this law—which is nearly identical to the Ordinance—was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to give notice as to what is considered a permissible assembly, and it failed to cabin the police chief’s discretion. Id.
Like the ordinance declared void for vagueness in Underwood, the Graham Ordinance enables the chief of police to “[r]efuse to issue [a] permit . . . when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety,” Ch.18, Art. VI § 18-178(2), and permits are allowed only when the protest “will not interfere with the right of property owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy” and “will not be likely to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a public disturbance.” Id. § 18179(2)–(3).3 As in Cox and Underwood, it is entirely unclear how speakers or the Police Chief will know whether a demonstration is likely to fail or satisfy these standards.
Finally, to the extent that it does anything, the provision stating that “nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the peaceful assembly of any group for orderly
3 In fact, the ordinance is even vaguer than the law in Cox v. Louisiana, which at least had a scienter requirement. See 379 U.S. at 551.
21
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 21 of 26

expression or communication between those assembled” only exacerbates the Ordinance’s vagueness. As the Fourth Circuit has recognized, laws that equivocate about the legality of constitutionally protected acts are impermissibly vague. In Lytle v. Doyle, the Fourth Circuit held that a statute prohibiting “loitering” on a bridge was unconstitutionally vague because it was unclear whether protesting there qualified as loitering. 326 F.3d 463, 469 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 57 (1999)).
Graham’s Ordinance shares this defect. It purports to reserve space for constitutionally protected free expression, while simultaneously prohibiting “any [unpermitted] assembly together or concert of action between two or more persons for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group[.]” Ch. 18, Art. VI §§ 18–172, 18–175. Protesters could rightfully be unsure of whether they may gather in public without a permit to express their viewpoints. If the permissibility of such an action depends on whether the expression is “between” those assembled or is “ma[de] known” to those nearby, do they need to whisper? This reasonable question illustrates the great potential for confusion inherent in this Ordinance; it is unclear to protesters and open to discriminatory enforcement by the police.
II. Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed. Preliminary relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. Absent
such relief, Plaintiffs will not be able to exercise their First Amendment freedoms, including by protesting over the coming weekend in small groups, in response to breaking news, and/or without obstructing any traffic. “[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for
22
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 22 of 26

even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”  Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).
III. The balance of equities and public interest favor preliminary relief. The balance of equities also weighs in favor of Plaintiffs. The Ordinance obstructs
Plaintiffs’ exercise of their constitutional rights, causing them great harm. Meanwhile, no harm will come to Defendants if Plaintiffs are allowed to engage in protected speech. See Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002) (injunction of a likely unconstitutional law does not harm the government). The balance therefore weighs in favor of an injunction. And upholding constitutional rights “surely serves” the public interest. Id.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina P. O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-834-3466
/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix

Vera Eidelman New York Bar No. 5646088 veidelman@aclu.org Emerson Sykes New York Bark No. 5020078 esykes@aclu.org ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2500
/s/ C. Scott Holmes C. Scott Holmes
23

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 23 of 26

North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel. 919-914-6106

Lockamy Law Firm North Carolina State Bar No. 25569 scott.holmes@lockamylaw.com 3130 Hope Valley Road Durham, North Carolina 27707 Tel: 919-401-5913
Counsel for Plaintiffs

24
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 24 of 26

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Relying on the word count function of Microsoft Word, I hereby certify that this brief complies with the word limitations set forth in LR 7.3.
/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 25 of 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 3, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and e-mailed true copies of this motion and attachments to the following: Robert M. Ward, Graham City Attorney rward42@triad.rr.com J. Bryan Coleman, Graham City Attorney
jbryancoleman@triad.twcbc.com
Clyde B. Albright, Alamance County Attorney clyde.albright@alamance-nc.com
/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 3 Filed 07/03/20 Page 26 of 26

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

)

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________________ )

1:20-CV-613

CONSENT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiffs Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”), Tamara O. Kersey, Carleen Tenae Turner, Terence Colin Dodd, Destiny Clarke, Annie Simpson, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, and Gregory Drumwright, have moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and LR 65.1 for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of Chapter 18, Art. VI, Sections 18-172 and 18-174 through 181 of the City of Graham (“City”), North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (“the Ordinance”). Among other things, the Ordinance makes it unlawful for any person to gather with anyone else “for the purpose of protesting” or “making known any position or thought” anywhere in the City without first obtaining the Chief of Police’s permission at least 24 hours in advance. Plaintiffs argue that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu1ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 7

After review of the declarations, documentary evidence, briefing submitted by Plaintiffs, the response of Defendants Jerry Peterman, Frankie Maness, Chip Turner, Melody Wiggins, Jennifer Talley, Ricky Hall and Jeffrey Prichard (hereafter collectively referred to as “Graham Defendants”) that they do not oppose the entry of a temporary restraining order pending further orders of the Court, and the parties’ Joint Motion for Consent Temporary Restraining Order, which sets forth, among other things, that the Graham defendants and Defendant Sheriff Terry S. Johnson agrees to the same, the Court hereby GRANTS the joint motion for a temporary restraining order as to the Graham ordinance referenced in the complaint existing as of July 2, 2020.
BACKGROUND The Ordinance provides that “[n]o parade, picket line or group demonstration is permitted on the sidewalks or streets of the city unless a permit therefor has been issued by the city.” Chapter 18, Art. VI. § 18-175. It defines group demonstration as “any assembly together or concert of action between two or more persons for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto,” parade as “any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition or procession of any kind in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks or other public places,” and picket line as “any persons formed together for the purpose of making known any position or promotion of said persons or on behalf of any organization.” Id. § 18-172. To enforce the Ordinance, the Chief of Police is authorized to: (1) Require a written application . . . to be filed 24 hours in advance
of such parade, picket line or group demonstration . . . Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu2ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 7

(2) Refuse to issue such permit when the activity or purpose stated in the application would violate any ordinance of the city or statute of the state, or when the activity or purpose would endanger the public health or safety, or hinder or prevent the orderly movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the sidewalks or streets of the city.
(3) Specify in the permit whether or not minors below the age of 18 years will be permitted to participate. The chief of police or, in his absence, the next highest ranking police officer of the city on duty shall pass upon whether or not minors below the age of 18 years shall be permitted to participate . . . and shall base his determination upon whether or not the purpose, time or place of the participation will be detrimental to or endanger the health, welfare or safety of said minors.
Id. § 18-178.
Moreover, the Ordinance provides that the Chief or other designated
officer must, “among other considerations provided,” find as a requisite before
issuing any permit that the activity will not (1) “require excessive diversion of
police from other necessary duties”; (2) “interfere with the right of property
owners in the area to enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”; or (3)
“unreasonabl[y] interfere[] with normal vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the
area, . . . prevent normal police or fire protection to the public, [or] . . . be likely
to cause injury to persons or property or provoke disorderly conduct or create a
public disturbance.” Id. § 18-179.
If the Chief of Police grants the permit, he then has discretion to limit the
protest or other gathering to “not more than six persons . . . [in] the entire width of
[the] street or sidewalk within . . . 100 feet.” Id. § 18-181. During a permitted
protest, parade, demonstration, or picket, he has discretion to order individuals to
disperse upon a violation of any of the terms of the permit. Id. § 18-176. If Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu3ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 7

individuals fail to disperse, they may be subject to arrest under NC Gen. Stat. § 14-288.5.
The Ordinance also makes it illegal for any minor to be present at an expressive gathering without explicit permission from the Chief or other designated officer. It authorizes them to deny such permission upon their own determination that attending would be “detrimental to or endanger [the minor’s] health, welfare or safety.” Art. VI § 18-178. Each violation of the Ordinance is “punishable as a misdemeanor, subject to a fine not to exceed $500.” Ch. 1 § 112. Defendants Prichard and Johnson both enforce criminal statutes.
In their Complaint and in declarations, Plaintiffs assert that they regularly attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, assemble, and associate in Graham. In particular, Plaintiffs describe recent efforts to protest institutionalized racism, police violence against Black people, and the continued presence of the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham. Because of the Ordinance, however, Plaintiffs contend that their exercise of their First Amendment rights has been impermissibly burdened and restrained.
On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On July 5, 2020, the Graham Defendants filed a response indicating they did not oppose entry of a temporary restraining order. On July 5, 2020, the parties jointly moved for a consent temporary restraining order
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu4ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 7

enjoining the Graham Defendants and Defendant Johnson. ANALYSIS
To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of their claims; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; the equities favor a temporary restraining order; and a temporary restraining order serves the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs challenge the Ordinance on First Amendment grounds because: (1)
the Ordinance is a content-based restriction that cannot survive strict scrutiny; (2) the Ordinance is an impermissible prior restraint on speech; and (3) the Ordinance’s restrictions excessively burden speech and are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Plaintiffs also challenge the Ordinance on Fourteenth Amendment grounds because the Ordinance is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause. The Court finds Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
II. Irreparable Injury “[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”  Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). As the Court finds Plaintiffs likely to prevail on their First and Fourteenth Amendment claim, the Court finds them likely to suffer irreparable injury as well. Plaintiffs’ injury is particularly imminent and immediate preliminary injunctive relief is necessary because several Plaintiffs state that they intend to protest in the
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu5ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 7

near future. For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to issue this Order. III. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury without preliminary relief. The
Graham Defendants concede that they will less likely be harmed by issuance of a TRO. The equities therefore weigh in favor of an injunction. See Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002) (injunction of a likely unconstitutional law does not harm the state). Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has held that upholding constitutional rights “surely serves” the public interest. Id. Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied these factors.
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED. The Graham Defendants and Defendant Johnson are hereby RESTRAINED from enforcing the Ordinance and the Ordinance shall have no force or effect pending further orders of the Court. In the Court’s discretion, the bond requirement under Rule 65(c) is waived. This Order shall be in effect for 14 days. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with notice of this Order and Defendants shall immediately provide Notice to their officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them.
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu6ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 7

The Court will continue to review Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and a hearing on that motion will be held by the undersigned on July 20, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
This the 6th day of July, 2020. _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Docu7ment 15 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NO. 1:20-CV-613

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

)

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, )

Alamance County Branch; TAMARA O.

)

KERSEY; COLLEEN TENAE TURNER; )

TERENCE COLIN DODD; DESTINY

)

CLARKE; NERISSA RIVERA; ADAM

)

ROSE; ANNIE SIMPSON; GREGORY B. )

DRUMWRIGHT,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, in his official capacity )

as Mayor of the City of Graham, North

)

Carolina; FRANKIE MANESS, in his official )

capacity as Graham City Manager; CHIP

)

TURNER, in his official capacity as Mayor )

Pro-Tem of the City of Graham; MELODY )

WIGGINS, JENNIFER TALLEY, and RICKY )

HALL, in their official capacities as Graham )

City Council Members; JEFFREY PRICHARD )

in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham )

Police Department; TERRY S. JOHNSON, in )

his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance )

County; BRYAN HAGOOD, in his official )

capacity as Alamance County Manager,

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________

DEFENDANTS TERRY S. JOHNSON AND BRYAN HAGOOD’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

COMES NOW Defendants Terry S. Johnson and Bryan Hagood, by and through Counsel, and submit this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as follows:
1

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 22 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 5

1. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on July 2nd, 2020 (D.E. 1). To this date, neither Defendant Hagood or Defendant Johnson have been served.
2. The filing of the lawsuit provided the first notice to these Defendants that Ordinance 18-175 et seq. of the City of Graham was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs submitted a letter (D.E. 8-1) to these Defendants on June 26, 2020, which expressed concern regarding Facebook posts made by Defendant Johnson, but the letter did not address the ordinance in question (D.E. 8).
3. Neither the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter “A.C.S.O.”) or Alamance County issue parade permits. See Declarations of Bryan Hagood and Lt. Scott Gaither attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B.”
4. Upon receipt of this lawsuit and over the 4th of July holiday weekend, undersigned Counsel, and Counsel for the Graham Defendants were in frequent communication with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. These communications resulted in the entry of a Consent Temporary Restraining Order on July 6, 2020 (D.E. 15), which states, in part, that the A.C.S.O. would no longer enforce the current Graham ordinance. Defendant Hagood is not mentioned in the Consent Order.
5. Defendant Hagood is not a proper party to this suit. Alamance County, specifically the office of the manager, has no authority over the Office of Sheriff. See Parker v. Bladen Co., 583 F.Supp.2d 736 (E.D.N.C. 2008), Peele v. Provident Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App 447, 368 S.E.2d, appeal dismissed, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 366, 373 S.E.2d 547 (1988), Clark v. Burke County, 117 N.C.App. 85, 450 S.E.2d 747 (1994), U.S. v. Johnson, 122 F.Supp. 3d 272 2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 22 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 5

(M.D.N.C. 2015), and Declaration of Bryan Hagood (Exhibit “A”). The Complaint appears to seek to impose liability on Hagood for not responding to an email (See Compl. ¶159-160). These Defendants respectfully submit that these allegations are insufficient to impose liability on Hagood. Moreover, it appears the email was sent to an invalid address. Id. 6. On July 11th 2020, a large demonstration was held in Graham in front of the courthouse. It is estimated that protesters, advocating removal of a confederate monument by the courthouse, numbered approximately five hundred (500) and counter demonstrators numbering one hundred (100), were present. During that event two (2) people were arrested by law enforcement agencies. One for disorderly conduct and failure to disperse and another for second-degree trespassing. See Declaration of Lt. Scott Gaither (Exhibit “B”). Upon information and belief, these demonstrators did not have a permit from Defendant City of Graham as none was required. On July 14, 2020, the Graham City Council repealed the ordinance. The Ordinance Repealing Article VI, “Parade or Demonstration Permit,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of Graham, North Carolina, is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 7. These Defendants respectfully submit that the Consent Temporary Restraining Order entered by the parties now renders this matter moot. See Anderson v. North Carolina Board of Elections, 248 N.C. App. 1 (2016). These Defendants further submit that the entry of an injunction is improper as to both as they have not been
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 22 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 5

served. Finally, an injunction as to Defendant Hagood would be improper as he has no authority over the Office of Sheriff. WHEREFORE, having responded to Plaintiffs’ Request for a Preliminary Injunction, these Defendants respectfully pray unto the Court the following:
1. That Defendant Hagood be DISMISSED from this matter and; 2. That the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED as moot. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. This the 15th day of July, 2020
/s/ William L. Hill_______________ William L. Hill (NCSB #21095) Attorney for Defendants Johnson & Hagood FRAZIER, HILL & FURY, R.L.L.P. 2307 W. Cone Boulevard, Suite 260 Post Office Drawer 1559 Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 Telephone: (336) 378-9411 Facsimile: (336) 274-7358 whill@frazierlawnc.com
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 22 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned does hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE was duly served upon all parties hereto in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure through the CM/ECF system in effect for the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as follows:
Counsel for Plaintiffs Kriste L. Graunke: kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel: dsiegel@acluofnc.org Elizabeth Haddix: ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin: mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Vera Eidelman: veidelman@aclu.org Emerson Sykes: esykes@aclu.org C. Scott Holmes: scott.holmes@lockamylaw.com
Counsel for Defendants Clyde B. Albright: clyde.albright@alamance-nc.com Ben Pierce: ben.pierce@alamance-nc.com Anthony J. Biller: ajbiller@michaelbest.com
This the 15th day of July, 2020.
/s/ William L. Hill William L. Hill (NCSB #21095) Attorney for Defendants Johnson & Hagood
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 22 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00613- CCE-LPA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Alamance County Branch; TAMARA O. KERSEY; CARLEEN TENAE TURNER; TERENCE COLIN DODD; DESTINY CLARKE; NERISSA RIVERA; ADAM ROSE; ANNIE SIMPSON; GREGORY B. DRUMWRIGHT
Plaintiffs, v.
JERRY PETERMAN, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Graham, North Carolina; FRANKIE MANESS, in his official capacity as Graham City Manager; CHIP TURNER, in his official capacity as Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Graham; MELODY WIGGINS, JENNIFER TALLEY, and RICKY HALL, in their official capacities as Graham City Council Members; JEFFREY PRICHARD, in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department; TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County; EDDIE BOSWELL, STEVE CARTER, BILL LASHLEY, AMY SCOTT GALEY and TIM SUTTON, in their official capacities as Alamance County Commissioners; and BRYAN HAGOOD, in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager,
Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 46

Plaintiffs file this FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 18, Art. VI, Sections 18-172 and 18-174–181 of the City of Graham, North Carolina’s Code of Ordinances (“the Ordinance”), which required any group of “two or more persons” gathering “for the purpose of protesting any matter or making known any position or thought of the group or of attracting attention thereto” and anyone at all “march[ing] . . . upon the public streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public places” to acquire a permit from the Graham police chief at least 24 hours in advance. The Ordinance gave the police chief complete discretion to limit gatherings to no more than six individuals and deny permit applications based on the chief’s judgment that the gathering might cause “a public disturbance,” and restricted all First Amendment-protected speech and assembly rights of minors absent discretionary permission by the police chief. 2. The July 2 Complaint alleged the Ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable and content-based time, place, and manner restrictions of speech in traditional public forums, and was void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process provision. 3. On July 6, 2020, this Court entered a Consent Temporary Restraining Order (DE 15) restraining Defendants Jerry Peterman, Frankie Maness, Chip Turner, Melody
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 46

Wiggins, Jennifer Talley, Ricky Hall, and Jeffrey Prichard (collectively, “the Graham Defendants”) and Terry Johnson from enforcing the Ordinance, and scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (DE 2) for July 20, 2020.
4. On July 14, the Graham City Council repealed Article VI of its Code of Ordinances. See attached Exhibit 1. (All exhibits are incorporated by reference into this Complaint). Plaintiffs withdrew their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the parties jointly moved to cancel the July 20 hearing on that motion on July 15, 2020. DE 23. On July 16, the Court entered an order allowing Plaintiffs’ motion and canceling the July 20 hearing. DE 24.
5. Notwithstanding the Ordinance’s repeal, and as pled in the original Complaint, Defendants continue to prohibit and obstruct Plaintiffs and countless other speakers from protesting in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham’s town square (“Historic Courthouse” or “Courthouse”). Defendants have a current policy and practice of prohibiting protesters from speaking or assembling at or near the Courthouse, including on the sidewalk in front of the Courthouse and on the Courthouse steps, despite a long tradition of allowing residents to assemble there.
6. Protesting in that location is central to Plaintiffs’ message because they seek to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in the public square, which glorifies the legacy of slavery, white supremacy, and racial oppression of Black people in Alamance County. Plaintiffs have protested and intend to continue to protest institutionalized racism and police violence against Black individuals and communities.
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 46

7. This action also challenges Defendant Peterman’s repeated issuance, and Defendants Johnson, Maness, and Prichard’s enforcement via Sheriff deputies and Graham police officers, of the so-called “State of Emergency” Declarations (“Emergency Orders”) which have severely limited the rights of protesters in Graham over the past two months. Defendant Peterman issued the first such order on May 31, 2020, prohibiting people from “gathering or demonstrating on any public street, sidewalk, or public property” between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Many of these orders completely restricted the ability of people to protest in Graham during several weekends in June. The most recent Emergency Order was issued on July 10, 2020, and restricted the activities of protesters within a six-block area surrounding the Confederate Monument and Historic Courthouse.
8. On July 12, 2020 the City of Graham posted on its website “SOE – Rescinded”; however, the text of that post reads: “Mayor Jerry Peterman has rescinded the Declaration of the State of Emergency initiating the curfew for the City of Graham (June 29, 2020).” See https://www.cityofgraham.com/soe-rescinded-july-12-2020/ (last accessed July 16, 2020).
9. None of Defendant Peterman’s orders were or are justified by any actual state of emergency or imminent threat to public health or safety. They were and are instead motivated by the Defendants’ desire to prevent individuals and groups (including Plaintiffs) from protesting the Confederate monument, institutionalized racism, and police violence against Black individuals and communities in Graham’s Historic Courthouse square.
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 46

10. In light of ongoing and imminent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, including the ongoing threat of criminal prosecution and civil enforcement, Plaintiffs respectfully request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure immediate cessation of Defendants’ unlawful restrictions on and prohibitions of Plaintiffs’ protected speech and assembly rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights, and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 12. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, as well as Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Plaintiffs regularly engage in expressive and associative activities in this District. All Plaintiffs live and/or work in this District.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 14. Plaintiff Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”) is the local affiliate of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a part of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 46

The NAACP is dedicated to seeking justice for all persons and the elimination of race discrimination. The NAACP has organized and participated in public demonstrations in Graham and Alamance County, is planning future protests and demonstrations at the Confederate monument situated at the Historic Courthouse in Graham in the very near future, and its members regularly participate in protests and other public assemblies in Graham, Alamance County, and throughout the state.
15. Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey is an adult Black resident of Graham, North Carolina; Associate Pastor of Wayman Chapel AME in Graham; and a member of organizational Plaintiff NAACP, for which she serves as Community Coordination Committee Chairperson. Plaintiff Kersey wishes to exercise her right to protest against the Confederate monument situated at the Historic Courthouse and racialized policing and police violence, but had previously not done so because of the Ordinance, and continues not to do so because of the Emergency Orders and Defendants’ other actions restricting protest at the Historic Courthouse.
16. Plaintiff Carleen Tenae Turner is an adult Black resident of North Carolina who has sought to organize protests in downtown Graham at the Historic Courthouse to support the Black Lives Matter movement and oppose the Confederate monument situated there. Plaintiff Turner intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
17. Plaintiff Terence Colin Dodd is an adult white resident of Hillsborough, North Carolina who sought to protest police brutality against Black people and
6
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 46

communities of color and to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in front of the Historic Courthouse in Graham on the morning of June 27, 2020. Plaintiff Dodd intends to continue his protesting in Graham in the near future.
18. Plaintiff Destiny Clarke is an adult white resident of Mebane, North Carolina who has sought to demonstrate in downtown Graham at the Historic Courthouse to protest white supremacy, to support the Black Lives Matter movement, and to oppose the Confederate Monument situated at the Historic Courthouse. She intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
19. Plaintiff Annie Simpson is an adult white resident of Concord, North Carolina who has sought to organize protests in downtown Graham to protest white supremacy, to support the Black Lives Matter movement, and to oppose the Confederate Monument situated at the Historic Courthouse. Plaintiff Simpson intends to continue her efforts to participate in such protests in Graham in the near future.
20. Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera is an adult Latinx resident of Alamance County, North Carolina who has previously demonstrated in downtown Graham near the Historic Courthouse to support racial equality and oppose the Confederate monument outside the Historic Courthouse. She seeks to engage in large and small group demonstrations there in the near future.
21. Plaintiff Adam Rose is an adult white resident of Graham, North Carolina who applied for a permit to protest Defendants’ efforts to suppress protests in Graham.
7
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 46

The City of Graham denied his permit application on June 27, 2020. Plaintiff Rose intends to continue his efforts to participate in protests in Graham in the near future.
22. Plaintiff Gregory B. Drumwright is an adult Black resident of Guilford County, North Carolina, a Professor of Communications at High Point University, a community organizer and social justice activist, and Senior Minister of the Citadel Church in Greensboro. Plaintiff Drumwright led a demonstration to protest racialized policing and police brutality against Black people and communities, and to protest the Confederate monument in Graham on July 11, 2020. He plans to continue to protest those same issues in Graham near the Historic Courthouse.
Defendants 23. Defendant Jerry Peterman (“Defendant Peterman” or “the Mayor”) is sued in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Graham, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Peterman has authority to convene and preside over city council meetings and must sign all city ordinances before they are officially codified. See GRAHAM, NC ORDINANCES Ch. 2, art. II, div. 1, §§ 2-23, 2-25. Defendant Peterman also has the authority to declare, modify, and terminate Emergency Orders. See id., Ch. 2, art. II, div. 2, §§ 2-51, 2-52, 2-55(1). 24. Defendant Frankie Maness is sued in his official capacity as Graham City Manager, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Maness is the executive head of the Graham City Police Department, id. art. IV, div. 1, §§ 2-118-119, is responsible for the supervision and administration of all city
8
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 46

departments and ensuring that the City Charter and the ordinances, resolutions, and regulations of the city council are faithfully executed. See id. art. IV, § 4.2.
25. Defendant Chip Turner is sued in his official capacity as Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Graham, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. In the event of a vacancy in the office of the Mayor, Defendant Turner is responsible for performing the Mayor’s duties until the vacancy is filled. See id. art. II, § 2.4.
26. Defendant Melody Wiggins is sued in her official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Wiggins is responsible for creating, modifying, and repealing city ordinances and has authority to vote to terminate states of emergency declared by the Mayor. See id. Ch. 2, art. II, div. 2, §2-55.
27. Defendant Jennifer Talley is sued in her official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Talley is responsible for creating, modifying, and repealing city ordinances and has authority to vote to terminate states of emergency declared by the Mayor. See id.
28. Defendant Ricky Hall is sued in his official capacity as a Graham City Council Member, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Hall is responsible for creating, modifying, and repealing city ordinances has authority to vote to terminate states of emergency declared by the Mayor. See id.
9
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 46

29. Defendant Jeffrey Prichard (“Defendant Prichard”) is sued in his official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police Department (GPD), is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Prichard has charge of the GPD and as such is authorized to assign duties to GPD officers and is responsible for seeing that GPD officers faithfully perform their duties. See id. Ch. 2, art. IV, div. 1, § 2-120.
30. Defendant Terry S. Johnson (“Defendant Johnson” or “the Sheriff”) is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Johnson is the chief law enforcement officer of Alamance County, and as such has authority to assign duties to sheriff’s deputies and enforce local ordinances in effect throughout the county. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-1 et seq.
31. Defendant Eddie Boswell is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner, is domiciled in the state, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and along with the rest of the Board of County Commissioners, supervises the maintenance, repair, and use of all county property and issues orders and adopts by ordinance or resolution regulations concerning the use of county property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-169.
32. Defendant Steve Carter is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner, is domiciled in the state, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and along with the rest of the Board of County Commissioners, supervises the maintenance, repair, and use of all county property and issues orders and adopts by ordinance or
10
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 46

resolution regulations concerning the use of county property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-169.
33. Defendant Bill Lashley is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner, is domiciled in the state, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and along with the rest of the Board of County Commissioners, supervises the maintenance, repair, and use of all county property and issues orders and adopts by ordinance or resolution regulations concerning the use of county property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-169.
34. Defendant Amy Scott Galey is sued in her official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner, is domiciled in the state, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and along with the rest of the Board of County Commissioners, supervises the maintenance, repair, and use of all county property and issues orders and adopts by ordinance or resolution regulations concerning the use of county property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-169.
35. Defendant Tim Sutton is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner, is domiciled in the state, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and along with the rest of the Board of County Commissioners, supervises the maintenance, repair, and use of all county property and issues orders and adopts by ordinance or resolution regulations concerning the use of county property pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-169.
11
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 11 of 46

36. Defendant Bryan Hagood is sued in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager, is domiciled in the state, and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Hagood is the chief administrator of Alamance County and as such is responsible for “see[ing] that the orders, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations of the board of commissioners are faithfully executed within the county.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-82 (4).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Confederate Monument at the Alamance Historic Courthouse in Downtown
Graham, NC 37. The Confederate monument outside the Historic Courthouse was erected in 1914 as a result of a coordinated statewide effort of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (“UDC”) to place Confederate monuments in public squares across the State. 38. Founded in 1894, the UDC raised funds for Confederate monuments, supported Confederate veterans and widows, and promoted and published textbooks for use in schools across the South. 39. The UDC also advanced and supported a political white supremacy campaign which disenfranchised and terrorized Black people. 40. The UDC officially recognized the Ku Klux Klan for its role in helping to restore southern home rule and advance white supremacy. 41. The UDC’s objective was to vindicate and glorify the Confederacy and to promote the “Lost Cause” mythology, a false historical narrative which downplayed the harm and significance of slavery and promoted policies of racial segregation and white supremacy.
12
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 12 of 46

42. According to the inscription on the Confederate monument in Graham, it was “erected through the efforts of the Graham Chapter” of the UDC. The total cost for the monument was $2,100, plus an additional $305 for the mound, post, chain, and curbing enclosure surrounding the monument. On January 5, 1914, the Alamance County Board of Commissioners appropriated $1,000 to contribute to the project.
43. Upon information and belief, the Graham Chapter of the UDC covered the majority of the costs for the project.
44. Confederate veteran Jacob A. Long—who founded Alamance County’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan and participated in the 1870 lynching of Wyatt Outlaw, a prominent Black councilman in Graham, in the courthouse square where the monument stands today—spoke at the May 1914 dedication of the monument. Long told those attending that they shared “a common interest: to recall the achievements of the great and good of our own race and blood.”
45. The monument consists of a statue of a Confederate soldier. There are crossed Confederate battle flags on the front of the shaft. In addition to the abovereferenced inscription attributed to the UDC, the monument contains the following inscriptions:
(a) “To Commemorate With Grateful Love the Patriotism, Valor, and Devotion to Duty, of the Brave Soldiers of Alamance County, Our Confederate Soldiers”
13
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 13 of 46

(b) “On Fame’s Eternal Camping Ground, Their Silent Tents are Spread, and Glory Guards, with Solemn Round, the Bivouac of the Dead."
(c) “Faithful Unto Death, They are Crowned with Immortal Glory." Opposition to the Confederate Monument at the Historic Courthouse 46. Groups of pro-Confederate demonstrators gather in front of the Confederate monument annually in May to celebrate Confederate Memorial Day. They are often met by individuals who oppose the Confederate monument’s presence in the Historic Courthouse square and the neo-confederate white supremacist ideology. 47. Anti-racism protesters have gathered at the Historic Courthouse in greater frequency and in greater numbers since 2015, after white supremacist Dylann Roof, under the banner of the Confederate flag, murdered nine Black people worshipping at the Emanuel Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina on June 17, 2015. 48. The murders sparked a new national discussion around Confederate monuments, and many states and municipalities began removing them. 49. However, the North Carolina General Assembly instead passed a law in 2015 preventing local governments from moving any government-owned “object of remembrance” located on public property. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1. 50. Recently, the Mayor of Burlington, fifty other elected officials, Plaintiff NAACP, and other community leaders called for the relocation of the Confederate
14
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 14 of 46

monument from the Historic Courthouse grounds because of the risk it poses to public safety and because of its white supremacist message.
Nationwide Protests After the Killing of George Floyd 51. On May 25, 2020, Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis Police Department officer, knelt on the neck of George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, for nearly nine minutes, killing him. Mr. Floyd died as three other officers looked on. The police killing of Mr. Floyd sparked protests in more than 2,000 cities and towns and over 60 countries in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Defendants’ Weekend “State of Emergency” Orders 52. As the protests in response to Mr. Floyd’s death and against police violence spread nationwide, Defendant Peterman began regularly issuing “State of Emergency Declarations” (“Emergency Orders”) to suppress such protests. May 31-June 1, 2020 Emergency Order 53. On May 31, Defendant Peterman issued the first such Emergency Order, which was publicized via a press release on the City’s website, stating that it was “due to the potential for damage or injury, due to civil unrest.” See Exhibit 2, May 31 Emergency Order. 54. Defendant Peterman did not cite any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property or injury in its municipal city limits. Id. 55. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on May 31, 2020.
15
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 15 of 46

56. Defendant Peterman’s May 31 order included the following restrictions:
(a) Restricted Access: It shall be unlawful to disobey any barriers, warning signs or other structures that restrict vehicular or pedestrian travel due to road closure, detours, hazards, etc.
(b) Furthermore, this declaration denies or restricts access to areas, streets, highways or locations within the City in which that restriction or denial of access or use is reasonably necessary to promote efforts being made to overcome the emergency or to prevent further aggravation of the emergency.
Id.
57. On May 31, the Mayor amended the order to include the following additional
terms, publicized by the City of Graham in a notice on its website:
(a) A curfew of 9 p.m. with the exception of Public Safety personnel, Doctors, Nurses and such other classes of persons as may be essential to the preservation of public order and immediately necessary to serve safety, health and welfare needs of the people within the City;
(b) a prohibition against travel to or within the Fire Limits as prescribed in Section 6-31 of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances;
(c) a prohibition against the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages away from one’s own premises;
(d) a prohibition against the use of dangerous weapons and substances unless permitted or exempted by Section 2-54(4) of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances or application General Statute.
See Exhibit 3, May 31 Amended Emergency Order.
58. On June 1, 2020, the Mayor lifted the order and curfew effective
immediately, as announced by the City of Graham on its website,
https://www.cityofgraham.com/.
June 4–June 9, 2020 Emergency Order
59. On June 4, 2020 at 9:01 p.m., the City of Graham posted a press release on
its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman restricting people’s
16
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 16 of 46

movement “due to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or
property due to civil unrest.” See Exhibit 4, June 4 Emergency Order.
60. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened
or actual civil unrest, damage to property or injury within the municipal city limits. Id.
61. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on
June 4, 2020.
62. Defendant Peterman’s order stated that it would “remain in effect until June
9 at 6 a.m. unless it is rescinded prior.” Id.
63. The June 4 Emergency Order included restrictions and conditions identical
to the amended May 31-June 1 Amended Emergency Order with two amendments:
(a) Extending the curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Id.
(b) Clarifying that “citizens traveling to or from places of employment” were
exempted from the curfew. Id.
64. On June 5, 2020, the City of Graham posted an “FAQ sheet” about the curfew
and order on its website. See Exhibit 5, June 5 FAQ for June 4 Emergency Order. The FAQ
included additional restrictions that were not explicitly included in the written order:
(a) The curfew prohibits anyone within the City of Graham, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., from gathering or demonstrating on any public street, sidewalk, or public property.
(b) It also prohibits travel upon any public street unless it is for the purpose of seeking medical care, food, or other necessities for yourself or a family member.
(c) Violation of the curfew is punishable as a class 2 misdemeanor. (d) All businesses are permitted to remain open during the nightly curfew if
they choose to do so. (e) Unnecessary additional travel or lingering in public space is prohibited.
17
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 17 of 46

Id. 65. On June 5, 2020 at 4:52 p.m., the City of Graham posted a comment on its
official Facebook page, alongside a photo of the order, that “[p]reventative actions are being taken to manage the potential for widespread damage, injury, or loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” See Exhibit 6, June 5 Facebook Comment.
66. On June 5, 2020, the City of Graham posted a letter from Defendant Peterman to its website. See Exhibit 7, Letter from Peterman. This letter included the following statement regarding the State of Emergency:
There are several instances where a State of Emergency is declared in advance and disseminated with an excess of time. For events such as hurricanes or winter storms, we often have days to prepare based on scientific forecasts. The threat of civil unrest is generally not a planned instance shared with the City. The priority of notice in these types of circumstances quickly creates the scenario of emergency management. Id. 67. On June 9, 2020, the City of Graham posted to its website that the order had been rescinded. See Exhibit 8, June 9 Rescinded Order. June 20–June 22, 2020 Emergency Order 68. On June 20, 2020, the City of Graham posted a press release on its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman “due to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” See Exhibit 9, June 20 Emergency Order.
18
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 18 of 46

69. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property, injury or loss of life within city limits. Id.
70. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on June 20, 2020.
71. The June 20 order included the following restrictions and conditions: a. A curfew of 9:00pm with the exception of police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses and such other classes of persons as may be essential to the preservation of public order and immediately necessary to serve the safety, health and welfare needs of the people within the City and citizens traveling to or from places of employment; b. A prohibition against the use of dangerous weapons and substances unless permitted or exempted by Section 2-54(4) of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances or applicable General Statute.
Id. 72. On June 22, 2020, the City of Graham posted to its website that the order had
been rescinded. See Exhibit 10, June 20 Rescinded Order. June 25–June 29, 2020 Emergency Order
73. On June 25, 2020, the City of Graham posted a press release on its website announcing another order by Defendant Peterman “due to the potential for widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property due to civil unrest.” See Exhibit 11, June 25 Emergency Order.
74. Neither Defendant Peterman nor the City cited any examples of threatened or actual civil unrest, damage to property, injury or loss of life within city limits. Id.
19
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 19 of 46

75. In fact, there was no threatened or actual civil unrest occurring in Graham on June 25, 2020.
76. This June 25 order was identical to the June 20 order. Id. 77. On June 26, 2020 at 12:00 p.m., the Alamance County Sheriff posted on his official Facebook page the following: “[E]ffective June 26, 2020, no permits to protest in the city of Graham, NC to include the Alamance County Courthouse have been granted, nor will be granted for the foreseeable future. Any group(s) attempting to protest without a permit, will be in violation and subject to arrest.” See Exhibit 12, June 26 Sheriff Protest Statement. 78. On June 26, 2020 at 3:55 p.m., the Alamance County Sheriff posted the following on his official Facebook page: “The Alamance County Sheriff’s Office DOES NOT participate in the permitting process for the city of Graham, NC. We are assisting the city of Graham, NC by providing them our social media platforms to help get the word out of their decision, so the public may be so informed.” See Exhibit 13, June 26 Sheriff Second Statement. 79. At the time the Sheriff declared a protest permit ban, the City of Graham had not yet done so. 80. On June 27, 2020, the City of Graham posted an Amended Declaration of State of Emergency on its website. See Exhibit 14, June 27 Amended Order. This amended order included two changes to the original: (a) The curfew was to begin at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. Id.
20
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 20 of 46

(b) “A temporary suspension of the issuance of parade and demonstration [sic] based on a clear and imminent threat to public safety.” Id.
81. This amended order differed from the Alamance Sheriff’s protest ban in that
it made the ban “temporary” rather than “for the foreseeable future.” Id.
82. The City of Graham posted a Media Release from the Graham Police
Department about the Amended order which stated the following:
Graham Police Department has been receiving viable intelligence about a large group of individuals demonstrating at the historic courthouse located at the court square on June 27, 2020. A peaceful protest was planned for this date, but a permit was denied. The coordinators of that event have since canceled their planned event. However, we found that another group of people were planning to come that were unrelated to the original group. The intel we received showed that the people had been involved with other protests in the state that had turned violent. In response to this potential threat we upstaffed to prepare for the crowed [sic] and requested mutual aid from multiple agencies. The mayor also amended the current state of emergency to include a temporary suspension of the issuance of parade and demonstration permits due to the clear and imminent threat to public safety.
See Exhibit 15, June 27 Police Statement.
83. On June 29, 2020 at 3:52 p.m., the City of Graham posted on its official
Facebook page that the order had been rescinded.
July 10, 2020 Emergency Order
84. On July 10, 2020, Defendant Peterman issued another “Declaration of State of Emergency” covering the below area outlined in red1:
1 Image copied from https://www.cityofgraham.com/declaration-of-a-state-of-emergencyby-the-mayor-of-the-city-of-graham-2/.
21
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 21 of 46

85. The July 10 order made it “unlawful to disobey any barriers, warning signs or other structures that restrict vehicular or pedestrian travel due to road closure, detours and/ or hazardous conditions,” and “to use dangerous weapons and substances as those terms are defined in N.C.G.S. 14-288.1 unless permitted or exempted by Section 2- 54(4) of the City of Graham Code of Ordinances or applicable General Statute.” See Exhibit 16, July 10 Emergency Order.
86. The July 10 order has not been rescinded.
22
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 22 of 46

The Historic Courthouse as a Site of Protest 87. The Historic Courthouse is located in the middle of the rotary in Graham which connects Main and Elm Streets. The road circling the Historic Courthouse is called Court Square. 88. A sidewalk encircles the Courthouse, with steps going into the Courthouse and grassy areas on all four sides. Pedestrians use the sidewalk to go to the Courthouse, and also to cross through the square on their way elsewhere. 89. The north and south entrance steps are wider than the east and west sides, and a row of stately columns line the north entrance. 90. The Confederate monument is positioned in front of the north entrance, and is accessed by a reddish brick-face crosswalk from N Main St., which runs alongside the west side of the monument to the north entrance of the Historic Courthouse. 91. Similar reddish brick crosswalks lead from West and East Elm Street across the Court Square rotary to the east and west entrances, and from S Main to the south entrance. 92. The Historic Courthouse has long served as a traditional public forum, including the steps on the north side, where people gather to make speeches on matters of public concern. 93. For example, large numbers of people supporting Confederate symbols gathered in a protest on the courthouse steps and area around the Confederate Monument
23
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 23 of 46

on July 18, 2015. People supporting Confederate symbols also gathered on the courthouse steps and area around the Confederate Monument to express themselves on May 20, 2017.
Defendants’ Prohibitions on Protest at or Near the Courthouse 94. Defendants have a policy or practice of selectively prohibiting protesters from being on the steps of, or the sidewalk surrounding, the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. 95. Defendants Boswell, Carter, Lashley, Galey and Sutton (hereinafter, “the Board of Commissioners”) supervise the use of all county property, including the Historic Courthouse grounds, through the County Manager, Defendant Hagood. Plaintiff Simpson was told by an Alamance County civilian official that no protests of any kind are allowed “on courthouse grounds.” DE 2 #8, Affidavit of Annie Simpson ¶ 8. Alamance Sheriff deputies and Graham police prohibited Plaintiff Dodd from being on the Courthouse grounds or near the monument. DE 2 #4, Affidavit of Terence Colin Dodd ¶¶ 5-11. 96. Since the nationwide protests began in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd on May 26, 2020, Defendant Johnson, either on his own or at the direction of Defendant Hagood or the Board of Commissioners, has surrounded the Confederate monument and at times, the Historic Courthouse, with physical barriers, prohibiting protest by anti-racists and people opposing the monument on the sidewalk and steps of the Historic Courthouse. 97. Since the nationwide protests began in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd on May 26, 2020, Graham Defendants have misused their Emergency
24
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 24 of 46

Powers to preemptively prohibit otherwise peaceful protest by anti-racist demonstrators in the downtown area.
98. Alamance Sheriff personnel also blocked access to the Historic Courthouse grounds on June 9, 2020 using their vehicles.
99. Alamance Sheriff personnel also blocked access to the Historic Courthouse grounds on June 27, 2020.
100. As shown in the following two photos, Alamance Sheriff personnel and Graham police blocked access to the Historic Courthouse grounds on July 11, 2020:
25
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 25 of 46

101. Defendants blocked access to the Historic Courthouse grounds again on July 12, 2020.
102. Alamance County Sheriff deputies and Graham police officers have ordered individuals, including Plaintiffs Dodd and Simpson, off of the sidewalks of the Historic Courthouse and prohibited them from standing on its steps.
103. Defendants have a history of allowing protesters who want to keep the Confederate monument to demonstrate in the Historic Courthouse square and on the north steps at the front of the courthouse without any interference by any law enforcement officers.
26
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 26 of 46

104. On July 18, 2015 and May 20, 2017, public demonstrations in support of the Confederacy and Graham’s Confederate Monument were held on the front steps of the Historic Courthouse.
105. At those demonstrations, neo-confederate supporters were allowed on the steps and in front of the courthouse, while Defendants employed an extensive police presence to defend them from possible counter-protesters.
106. However, those who oppose the monument because it glorifies the legacy of slavery and racial oppression of Black people in Alamance County are now prohibited from protesting on the steps of the Courthouse and area around the Confederate Monument.
Individual Plaintiff Allegations 107. Plaintiff NAACP is an expressive association that seeks to promote the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination. NAACP engages in expression, including protest, to advance the interests of its members and equality for all people, free from racial discrimination. 108. The NAACP joined Alamance County and Elon University leaders in a written request to the County to remove the Confederate monument from Graham’s Historic Courthouse square. 109. The NAACP has a direct and immediate interest in the issues presented in recent protests of racialized police violence and the Confederate monument in Graham, and in the rights of its members to participate, now and in the future, in such public demonstrations and protests against institutionalized racism, police violence, and the
27
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 27 of 46

Confederate monument—rights enshrined in the laws and traditions of this State and Nation, including the right to assemble with others and to freedom of speech and movement.
110. Those rights are trampled by Defendants through the orders and prohibition on access to Graham’s Historic Courthouse and courthouse square that are the subject of this action.
111. In response to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff NAACP has been forced to divert resources to assess, plan for, and educate its members about public gatherings, demonstrations, and protests which it has organized or in which its members wish to participate in Graham.
112. The time and effort Plaintiff NAACP has expended due to Defendants’ nowrepealed Ordinance, repeated “State of Emergency” orders, and prohibition on access to the Historic Courthouse grounds has reduced its capacity to plan events and programming consistent with its organizational mission. Defendants’ actions are directly inhibiting Plaintiff NAACP’s capacity to fulfill its mission of effecting community and institutional change through peaceful public demonstrations in downtown Graham and at the Confederate monument site.
Tamara O. Kersey 113. Plaintiff Tamara O. Kersey has attended vigils and rallies in the Alamance County towns of Mebane and Burlington to protest racist police brutality in the wake the killing of George Floyd, but has not yet protested in her hometown of Graham due to
28
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 28 of 46

Defendants’ unlawful actions. When Graham’s (now-repealed) Ordinance was in place, and now with Defendants’ Johnson’s and Prichard’s orders and practice of prohibiting antiracist demonstrators from accessing the Historic Courthouse grounds still in place, Plaintiff Kersey has reasonably feared being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for violating them.
114. On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Kersey applied to Defendant Prichard for a permit as was required under the now-repealed Ordinance, for a prayer vigil on July 18 or 25, sponsored by the NAACP and faith leaders in Alamance County to protest police brutality against Black people and communities of color nationwide and in Alamance County, and to protest the continued presence of the Confederate monument in Graham’s public square.
115. Plaintiff Kersey received a response from Graham Police Lieutenant Flood on July 3 that the City was open to working with Plaintiff on either date. Plaintiff Kersey has reserved July 25 for the prayer vigil and demonstration.
116. Plaintiff Kersey wishes to exercise her First Amendment freedoms to hold her vigil and demonstration on the Historic Courthouse grounds near the monument. But she reasonably expects that, as they did at the March for Justice and Community on July 11, 2020, Defendant Johnson and/or the Board of Commissioners and Defendant Hagood will prohibit social justice demonstrators from accessing the Historic Courthouse grounds or being anywhere near the Confederate monument, and will arrest any such demonstrator who goes near that public property.
29
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 29 of 46

Tenae Turner 117. Plaintiff Tenae Turner sought to organize a protest of one hundred to three hundred people at the Historic Courthouse in Graham that she had scheduled for June 27, 2020. 118. Plaintiff Turner submitted a permit application for the protest and gathering pursuant to the then-applicable Ordinance for a group demonstration to the Graham City Police on June 24, 2020 at 4:33 p.m. 119. On June 26, 2020 at 9:15 p.m., Graham Assistant Chief of Police Kristy Cole emailed Plaintiff Turner a document denying her application. 120. Assistant Chief Cole’s email stated multiple reasons for the denial of Plaintiff Turner’s application including: a. an incomplete address; b. the potential for the demonstration to interfere with orderly movement of
individuals and property owner’s right to “enjoy peaceful occupancy and use of their property”; c. excessive diversion of police from other necessary duties; and d. that “[r]ecent events in Court Square on 6/20/20 has [sic] already placed business owners in fear for the safety of their property, as well as, their employees. We feel that this event would further enhance the fear and concerns that they have.” 121. Assistant Chief Cole’s email also stated that no protests are allowed at the Historic Courthouse.
30
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 30 of 46

122. On June 27, 2020, Plaintiff Turner submitted a new application for a permit to demonstrate that she hoped would address the concerns outlined in Defendants’ denial email for her June 24, 2020 application.
123. In this new permit application, Plaintiff Turner requested a permit for a demonstration on June 28, 2020 at the Historic Courthouse from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. for up to eight people.
124. The application included Plaintiff Turner’s complete address and stated that protesters would be social distancing at least six feet apart, wearing masks, and not yelling or chanting, although they would be holding signs.
125. On June 27, 2020 at 7:04 p.m., Assistant Chief Cole wrote to Plaintiff Turner informing her that she would “need to seek written permission from Alamance County to be on the grounds of county property” and asked her to resubmit her application with that written permission included.
126. Plaintiff Turner replied that demonstrators would protest on the grass at the Historic Courthouse or on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the Historic Courthouse.
127. Assistant Chief Cole replied that she was unable to issue a permit for group demonstration due to the Mayor’s June 27, 2020 State of Emergency order.
128. Plaintiff Turner then cancelled the planned demonstration out of fear that participants would be arrested or fined if they demonstrated in Graham without a permit.
129. Plaintiff Turner plans to continue to organize group demonstrations outside the Historic Courthouse in the near future.
31
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 31 of 46

Terence Colin Dodd 130. Plaintiff Dodd, with his mouth and nose covered for COVID-19 transmission prevention, peacefully approached the Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse around 6:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 27, 2020 holding a poster that read “Black Lives Matter.” 131. Plaintiff Dodd intended to demonstrate with his sign at the areas marked with red “Xs” in the photos below:
32
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 32 of 46

132. One of Defendant Johnson’s deputies was in a squad car parked beside the monument at the crosswalk (see lower right red “X” in street view Google photo above and top red “X” in aerial Google map photo above).
133. As Plaintiff Dodd approached the monument with his sign, the deputy got out of the car, walked toward Plaintiff Dodd and ordered him to step back.
134. The deputy had no mouth or nose covering to protect against COVID-19 transmission.
33
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 33 of 46

135. Plaintiff Dodd asked the deputy to explain the ordinance or other legal authority that allowed the deputy to prevent Plaintiff Dodd from demonstrating at the Confederate monument and on the Historic Courthouse steps.
136. The deputy did not answer Plaintiff Dodd, but instead called on his radio for backup.
137. A half dozen squad cars arrived, and eight to ten Sheriff deputies. 138. Plaintiff Dodd felt overwhelmed and fearful, but kept saying to the deputies, “Tell me the law, tell me what law I’m breaking,” and asking if he was under arrest. 139. GPD officers then arrived and told Plaintiff Dodd that he could not be on County property but could walk on the city sidewalks on the other side of Court Square so long as he was alone, not with a group. 140. Because he did not want to get arrested, Plaintiff Dodd obeyed the officers and the deputies and walked alone on the city sidewalks with his sign until close to 10:00 a.m., when he left.
Nerissa Rivera 141. On June 27, 2020 Plaintiff Nerissa Rivera was planning to go to the protest in Graham organized by Plaintiff Turner. She had seen the protest announced on Facebook. 142. Plaintiff Rivera opposes the Confederate monument standing outside the Historic Courthouse because it represents murder, inequality, and racism. It frustrates her to see law enforcement wasting taxpayer money protecting the monument when there is real public safety work that needs to be done in the county.
34
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 34 of 46

143. Before she got to Graham on June 27, she learned that Plaintiff Turner had cancelled the demonstration because she could not get a permit from the City and did not want anyone to get arrested or injured.
144. Plaintiff Rivera decided to go to downtown Graham and protest alone. 145. Before going out to the monument to protest, Plaintiff Rivera joined some friends at a restaurant near the Historic Courthouse. 146. Plaintiff Rivera joined a racially diverse group of about ten people, some of whom were wearing Black Lives Matter shirts, to walk one member of the group back to her car. They walked in pairs, six feet apart on the sidewalk together to comply with COVID-19 precautions. 147. Plaintiff Rivera and the group walked down the east side of N. Main Street, crossing Main Street at a point in between the Harden Street intersection and the Graham Cinema. As they walked on the sidewalk down N Main St and towards the Historic Courthouse, on the block between E Harden St and N Court Square, they were stopped by Graham police who told them they could not protest. 148. Members of the group responded to the officers that they were not protesting, and explained they were walking their friend to her car. 149. Officers said they would allow them to walk to the car but would not allow them to protest. Officers instructed the group that if they started to protest, they would be ordered to leave or disperse. Plaintiff Rivera's group walked south down North Main Street and turned left onto NE Court Square. They saw white people with Confederate flags
35
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 35 of 46

congregating at Sesquicentennial Park (across the street from the courthouse on NW Court Square at the intersection of N Main St and W Elm St).
150. Graham police stopped Plaintiff Rivera and her group a little later at NE Court Square, across from N Main St. Plaintiff Rivera and others in her groups asked the officers why the group with the Confederate flags was not being ordered to leave. The officers responded that they had not been instructed to concentrate on the area where the other group with the Confederate flags was located. Plaintiff Rivera left Graham without being able to demonstrate with her group.
151. Plaintiff Rivera had intended to join a protest at the Historic Courthouse which was cancelled as a result of the denial of Plaintiff Turner’s permit. She attempted to walk around the Historic Courthouse in protest and was threatened by police. She intends to continue her efforts to protest the presence of the Confederate monument at the Historic Courthouse.
Destiny Clarke 152. Plaintiff Destiny Clarke arrived in downtown Graham on June 28, 2020 at approximately 7:00 p.m. 153. Defendant Johnson’s June 26 Facebook post (referenced in above paragraph 77) and Defendant Peterman’s June 27, 2020 order prohibiting protests were in effect. 154. Plaintiff Clarke exited her car and began walking alone and silently on West Elm Street carrying a “Black Lives Matter” sign.
36
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 36 of 46

155. As she turned onto the sidewalk on NW Court Square, she was stopped by a GPD officer who threatened to arrest her if she did not leave the area.
156. The officer told Plaintiff Clarke that there is no protesting allowed and she needed to leave or be arrested.
157. Plaintiff Clarke replied, “I don’t have to leave because it’s a public place and it’s before curfew.”
158. The officer persisted in threatening to arrest her if she did not leave. 159. Plaintiff Clarke offered to throw away her sign and then threw it away. 160. As she was throwing away “Black Lives Matter” sign, the officer continued to threaten to arrest her if she did not leave. 161. Once she threw away her sign, the officer left. 162. During the interaction, a family passed by carrying ice cream and the officer did not interact with them or ask them to leave. 163. Plaintiff Clarke believes that she was threatened with arrest specifically because she was carrying a sign with a political message. 164. She was not permitted to walk alone on the public sidewalk in Graham, apparently because she was carrying a poster with anti-racist speech on it. 165. Plaintiff Clarke plans to continue to protest at the Alamance Historic Courthouse in the near future.
37
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 37 of 46

Annie Simpson 166. On June 29, 2020 at 3:25 p.m., Plaintiff Annie Simpson called the GPD to inquire about how to apply for a permit to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. 167. Assistant Chief Kristy Cole informed Plaintiff Simpson that she would have to submit written permission from the Alamance County Manager’s Office along with her application for demonstration permit in order to hold a demonstration at the Historic Courthouse. 168. On June 29, 2020 at 4:02 p.m., Plaintiff Simpson called Defendant Hagood’s office to inquire about the process of acquiring written permission to demonstrate at the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. 169. Plaintiff Simpson informed the individual who answered the phone in Defendant Hagood’s office that she was applying for a protest permit with GPD and that the protest would be on county property at the Historic Courthouse. 170. Plaintiff Simpson asked for Defendant Hagood’s email address so she could request the written permission GPD told her was needed. The person she spoke with asked her what she needed the permit for, and she answered that she was applying for a protest permit. After waiting on hold, Plaintiff Simpson was told, “I’m not sure why Graham is telling you to contact the County Manager because the county does not issue any kind of protest permits. You’ll have to go through the City of Graham.”
38
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 38 of 46

171. Plaintiff Simpson explained again that she had been told by Assistant Chief Cole that she needed to gain written permission from the County Manager before she could even apply for a permit to demonstrate on the grass or steps outside the Alamance County Historic Courthouse.
172. Defendant Hagood’s staff person responded that no protest would be allowed on courthouse grounds.
173. Plaintiff Simpson asked for clarification and Defendant’s staff person repeated that no protests are allowed on courthouse grounds.
Adam Rose 174. Plaintiff Adam Rose became concerned about police and governmental overreaction to peaceful protests in Graham in early June 2020. 175. On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Rose passed by the Historic Courthouse Square and was surprised to see neo-confederate demonstrators near the monument openly carrying firearms, in contravention of state law regarding public demonstrations. 176. At Graham’s video (Zoom) City Council meeting June 9, 2020, Plaintiff Rose’s written public comment was read aloud, expressing his concerns about the City’s respecting free speech rights. 177. One of the Council Members stood up and left the meeting while Plaintiff Rose’s comment was being read.
39
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 39 of 46

178. On June 26, 2020 Plaintiff Rose filed an application for a permit to demonstrate at the Historic Courthouse Square. Plaintiff Rose indicated he planned to attend with five others on June 28 for a two-hour period.
179. On June 27, Assistant Chief Cole informed Plaintiff Rose that his permit had been denied, and that no permits would be issued for an indefinite period of time.
Plaintiff Gregory Drumwright 180. On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff Drumwright applied for a permit to hold a large demonstration at the Historic Courthouse square in Graham on July 11, 2020. 181. Soon after emailing the permit application to the GPD, Plaintiff Drumwright received an emailed acknowledgement of receipt of his application stating that it would be forwarded to GPD Lieutenant Flood, who would then follow up with Plaintiff Drumwright. 182. Plaintiff Drumwright later telephoned Lt. Flood, who told Plaintiff Drumwright that he had seen Plaintiff’s application and would get back to him about it. 183. On July 3, Lieutenant Flood contacted Plaintiff Drumwright and said he was continuing to work on processing the permit application. Plaintiff Drumwright requested to meet with Lieutenant Flood on July 7, and Lieutenant Flood agreed. 184. Plaintiff Drumwright was concerned that Defendants would not advise him whether his permit was granted in sufficient time to be able to plan and make arrangements for the July 11 demonstration.
40
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 40 of 46

185. For that reason, on July 1, Plaintiff Drumwright called the Graham City Manager’s office concerning his permit application. He was told during that call that Defendant Johnson was not allowing any permits for protests to be issued.
186. On July 7 at the meeting with Lieutenant Flood, Plaintiff was told that because of the Temporary Restraining Order entered by this Court on July 6, the City’s permit requirement was suspended, and that he would have to get a permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to have marchers use the roundabout around the Historic Courthouse.
187. Plaintiff Drumwright obtained permission from the NCDOT for street closures going into Graham from Burlington and near the Historic Courthouse for the Burlington- Graham March for Justice and Community (“the March for Justice”) on July 11, 2020.
188. The March for Justice ended with a rally at the stage on the Courthouse Square where there were various speakers and musical selections.
189. Graham police and Alamance Sheriff personnel set up barriers, using tape, patrol cars, officers and deputies, to prevent people from accessing the Historic Courthouse grounds before, during, and after the March for Justice on July 11, 2020.
190. Graham police and Alamance Sheriff personnel told Plaintiff Drumwright and those assisting him in setting up the stage and sound system on the morning of July 11 that they and everyone participating in their demonstration were prohibited from accessing the Historic Courthouse grounds, which they said was “county property.”
41
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 41 of 46

191. A young Black man who was assisting Plaintiff Drumwright with the March for Justice stage event was arrested at around 1:00pm on July 11 when he attempted to cross the Court Square on the southeast side near West Elm Street to deliver some papers to one of the speakers at the stage.
192. Prior to his arrest, Graham Police Sargent Payne had given the young man permission to cross the Court Square to retrieve some papers for Plaintiff Drumwright from his vehicle on South Main Street.
193. Plaintiff Drumwright plans to continue to go to Graham accompanied by other community members to demonstrate and protest peaceably in and around the Historic Courthouse square in Graham against white supremacy, police brutality and racial oppression.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF FREE EXPRESSION, FREE ASSOCIATION, AND ASSEMBLY RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983 On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants 194. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
forth herein. 195. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the free
expression, free association, and assembly rights protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff NAACP asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
42
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 42 of 46

196. In the following paragraphs, references to the First Amendment include the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
197. Defendants’ policy and practice of prohibiting and restricting public protest in the Historic Courthouse square, including the sidewalk in front of and the steps of the Courthouse, is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and assembly.
198. Defendants’ practice of allowing protesters who support Confederate symbols to gather on the Historic Courthouse steps and area around the Confederate Monument, but prohibiting anti-racism protesters in the same place is a content- and viewpoint-based unconstitutional restriction on free speech and assembly.
199. Defendant Peterman’s practice of declaring—and all Defendants’ practice of enforcing—repeated Emergency Orders that suppress and restrict peaceful protests in Graham and its Historic Courthouse square is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and assembly.
COUNT TWO VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983
On Behalf of All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
200. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
43
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 43 of 46

201. Plaintiffs assert a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of due process rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff NAACP asserts this claim on behalf of itself and its members.
202. Defendants’ policies and practices with respect to unlawful Emergency Orders and restricting access to the Courthouse violate Plaintiffs’ right to travel and freedom of movement under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling or substantial government interest.
203. Defendants’ policies and practices with respect to unlawful Emergency Orders and restricting access to the Courthouse violate Plaintiffs’ rights to due process because they are pretextual, and because Defendants issue and enforce these policies and practices arbitrarily.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the following relief: (a) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, and enter a declaratory judgment stating
that Defendants’ policies and practices of prohibiting protest at the Historic Courthouse grounds violates Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and assembly under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (b) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, and enter a declaratory judgment stating that Defendants’ policies and practices of promulgating and enforcing Emergency Orders violates Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech and assembly under
44
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 44 of 46

the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

(c) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and as otherwise permitted by law; and

(d) Order such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July 2020,

/s/ Kristi L. Graunke Kristi L. Graunke North Carolina Bar No. 51216 kgraunke@acluofnc.org Daniel K. Siegel North Carolina Bar No. 46397 dsiegel@acluofnc.org ACLU of North Carolina P. O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611-8004 Tel: 919-834-3466

Vera Eidelman New York Bar No. 5646088 veidelman@aclu.org Emerson Sykes New York Bar No. 5020078 esykes@aclu.org ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-549-2500

/s/ Elizabeth Haddix Elizabeth Haddix North Carolina Bar No. 25818 ehaddix@lawyerscommittee.org Mark Dorosin North Carolina Bar No. 20935 mdorosin@lawyerscommittee.org Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law P.O. Box 956 Carrboro, NC 27510 Tel. 919-914-6106

C. Scott Holmes Lockamy Law Firm North Carolina State Bar No. 25569 scott.holmes@lockamylaw.com 3130 Hope Valley Road Durham, North Carolina 27707 Tel: 919-401-5913
Counsel for Plaintiffs

45
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 45 of 46

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I filed the foregoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT using the Court’s CM/ECF system, and thereby notified all attorneys of record.

Submitted this 17th day of July 2020

By: /s/ Elizabeth Haddix
Elizabeth Haddix Attorney for Plaintiffs

46
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 27 Filed 07/17/20 Page 46 of 46

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR )

THE ADVANCEMENT OF

)

COLORED PEOPLE ALAMANCE )

COUNTY BRANCH, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

1:20-CV-613

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge.

The plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from

prohibiting protests in the immediate vicinity of the Alamance County Courthouse. The

plaintiffs are likely to be successful on their claims that the County defendants are

violating their First Amendment rights by prohibiting protests on the steps, grounds, and

sidewalks surrounding the Historic Alamance County Courthouse, and they are likely to

suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case began on July 2, 2020, when the plaintiffs filed a complaint and a

motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directed towards

enforcement of an ordinance enacted by the City of Graham that governed parade and

protest permits. See Docs. 1, 2. The plaintiffs are the Alamance County Branch of the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and several individuals

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 16

actively engaged in protesting against a monument outside the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham, North Carolina. Doc. 27 at ¶¶ 14–22. The defendants fall into two groups: the City Defendants—the mayor, city council members, city manager, and police chief for the City of Graham—and the County Defendants—the Sheriff, county commissioners, and county manager for Alamance County. Id. at ¶¶ 23–36.
Shortly before a scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to a consent TRO enjoining enforcement of the contested City ordinance, see Doc. 11, which was entered. Doc. 15. Soon thereafter on July 14, the City repealed the ordinance at issue. Doc. 27-1. The plaintiffs withdrew their motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 23, as it had become moot. See Doc. 24.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint directed at what they allege are continued actions by the defendants to suppress their First Amendment rights, as well as the rights of other protestors, by prohibiting protests around the Alamance County Courthouse and by imposing restrictions on protests by the repeated issuance of “State of Emergency Declarations.” See Doc. 27 at ¶¶ 5–10. The pending motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was filed on July 28, 2020 and is directed towards both practices. Doc. 47. The City of Graham defendants filed a written response with evidence, Docs. 53, 53-1–53-4, as did the Alamance County defendants. Docs. 54, 54-1– 54-9. A hearing was held on July 30, 2020. Minute Entry 07/30/2020. Following the hearing, the plaintiffs filed a reply brief, Doc. 55, and the County Defendants filed a surreply. Doc. 56.
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 16

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court denied the motion to the extent it was directed against the City Defendants, based on facts found and reasons stated in open court; that aspect of the pending motion will not be addressed further here. See Minute Entry 07/30/2020. The Court took the motion under advisement to the extent it was directed against the County Defendants.
In a written order entered shortly thereafter, the Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to be successful on the merits in their claims against the County Defendants and were likely to suffer irreparable harm. See generally Doc. 57. The Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because of the need to evaluate the specific language for a preliminary injunction and to give the defendants a short time to plan for the end of their long-term prohibition. Doc. 57 at 17-18. The Court indicated it would likely grant the motion for preliminary injunction but allowed the parties to submit additional evidence and briefing; it also invited submissions on appropriate language for an injunction. See id.
The County Defendants filed a response, Doc. 58, establishing that they had a post-injunction plan for managing the space and providing a revised operating procedure for the Alamance County Courthouse grounds. Doc. 58-1. Despite the specific invitation from the Court, see Doc. 57 at 19, the defendants did not suggest any language for the preliminary injunction, see Doc. 58, nor did they suggest any language to cover emergency situations. See id.
The plaintiffs also filed a supplemental brief with evidence. Doc. 59; Docs. 59-1 to 59-19. They asked the Court to specifically enjoin the County Defendants from
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 16

prohibiting protests on: the steps on all sides of the courthouse; the lawns on the courthouse grounds; the sidewalk encircling the courthouse inside the traffic roundabout; the walkway from the courthouse steps to the sidewalk; the area between the monument and the courthouse marked “RESERVED”; and the red portion of the crosswalk that runs beside the monument. Doc. 59 at 1. In response to the defendants’ submission, the plaintiffs contended that the new policy, while an improvement, still violates their constitutional rights. See Doc. 60. The County Defendants argue otherwise. Doc. 61.
The motion for preliminary injunction is now ripe for review. FINDINGS OF FACT
For purposes of this Order only, the Court makes the following findings of fact, after consideration of all the evidence submitted. As is necessary and in the context of specific issues, the Court will address and find other relevant facts throughout this Order.
The plaintiffs regularly attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, assemble, and associate in Graham, and recently they have organized, engaged in, or attempted to organize or engage in protests against institutionalized racism, police violence against Black people, and the continued presence of a Confederate monument in front of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse1 in Graham. The Alamance NAACP has planned and organized such protests, Doc. 2-1 at ¶¶ 7–8, and many of the individual plaintiffs have participated in vigils, rallies, protests, and other expressive acts directed against systemic racism and the Confederate monument. See, e.g., Doc. 2-2 at ¶ 3; Doc.
1 All references in this opinion are to the Historic Courthouse, not to the other, newer courthouses in Alamance County.
4
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 16

2-3 at ¶ 6; Doc. 2-4 at ¶ 3; Doc. 47-8 at ¶ 2; Doc. 50-1 at ¶¶ 2–6. On some of these occasions, counter-protesters who favor keeping the monument in place have also appeared. Doc. 2-6 at ¶¶ 20–21; Doc. 53-3; Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 26, 44; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 8.
The Historic Alamance County Courthouse is located in the center of downtown Graham. See Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 7; Doc. 48 at 2; Doc. 53 at 2. It is a working courthouse that is open Monday through Friday. Doc. 52 at ¶ 17. The courthouse sits in the middle of a square, on a relatively small piece of land. Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 7. There are small open spaces on each corner with what appear to be grass and trees, which the Court will refer to as the courthouse grounds. Id.; Doc. 52 at ¶ 17 (characterizing the space as “small ‘lawns’”). The courthouse and these grounds are surrounded by a sidewalk and parking spaces, which are themselves surrounded by what is essentially a vehicular roundabout. Doc. 501 at ¶ 7.
Highway 87, also known as Main Street, enters and exits the square from the south and north, and Elm Street enters and exits the square from the west and the east. Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 7. There are businesses and sidewalks around the outside of the square with onstreet parking, and vehicular traffic circles the courthouse inside the square. Id.; Doc. 52 at ¶ 19. There is a small park, known as Sesquicentennial Park, on the northwest corner of the square, caddy-cornered from the courthouse. Doc. 50-1 at ¶¶ 2, 6–7.
There are four pedestrian crosswalks providing access from the outer rim of sidewalks to the sidewalks surrounding the courthouse, one on each side of the building. Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 7; Doc. 52 at ¶ 17. The crosswalks are parts of the roadway accessible to motor vehicles. While the crosswalk space beside the monument cannot be “driven
5
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 16

through” because of the monument, it is part of the roadway, as the evidence shows it is very close to a parking space and could be used by a vehicle to back out of the parking space. See Doc. 59-14.
The only functioning entrance to the courthouse is on the northern side of the building; this entrance has a wide flat area between the “RESERVED” space, see infra, and several very wide steps that ascend to the entrance. See, e.g., Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 5; Doc. 59-6.
Outside of the northern entrance to the courthouse is a large Confederate monument. Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 7. One of the crosswalks runs level with the street beside the monument, connecting the sidewalk around the courthouse with the northwestern and northeastern corners of the town square. Id.; Doc. 59-15. The monument itself is surrounded by low concrete posts with links of chain running between them and a raised curb which encloses small landscaped flower beds at the base of the statue. Id. at ¶¶ 7–8, Doc. 59-12. This is in turn surrounded by temporary, movable barriers that are about waist-high. See Doc. 59-12.
Between the flower bed and the sidewalk outside the courthouse steps, there is a paved area level and in line with the parking space marked as “RESERVED” that is considered part of the courthouse grounds. See Doc. 59-15. Vehicles do not drive through this space, Doc. 59-1 at ¶ 9, which functions like a sidewalk.2 See, e.g., Doc. 54-
2 The Court’s order denying the temporary restraining order found as a fact that “no vehicles travel” through this space and that “it is not used as a parking space.” Doc. 57 at 5. In their submission afterwards, the defendants did not contest or address this fact. In their new policy, the County Defendants say that this area is used as a parking space, Doc. 58-1 at 2, but there is no
6
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 16

9 at ¶ 6 (characterizing the entire area between the North entrance and the monument as a sidewalk.)
Highway 87 is a state highway. Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 3. Elm Street is a city street. The courthouse, the grounds inside the sidewalks, the monument itself, and the small piece of land currently planted with flowers which surrounds the monument are owned and controlled by Alamance County. Id. at ¶ 6; see Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 14–15. The Alamance County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for law enforcement on courthouse grounds and other county property, Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 4, and the Sheriff and his deputies routinely police and manage access to the public sidewalks immediately adjacent to the courthouse. Doc. 52 at ¶ 15.
Demonstrations and protests have historically been held on the courthouse steps and in the spaces immediately outside and around the courthouse. Doc. 2-9 at ¶ 7; Doc. 50-1 at ¶ 18; Doc. 52 at ¶ 14; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 7. The courthouse steps and grounds and the sidewalks immediately surrounding the courthouse are a traditional public forum. See Doc. 48 at 14; Doc. 53 at 9–10; Doc. 54 at 6.
After the death of George Floyd at the hands of a police officer in May, protests near the courthouse increased. Doc. 52 at ¶¶ 6, 9–10. In late May and early June, law enforcement in Graham and Alamance County became aware of news reports of violence and property damage during protests in Fayetteville, Greensboro, and Raleigh, larger
affidavit or declaration on this point, nor did the County Defendants address this in their supplemental briefing. See Doc. 58. Therefore, the Court has not changed this finding of fact.
7
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 7 of 16

cities not far from Graham. Id. at ¶¶ 32–34; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 9. According to news reports, these incidents included a fire that damaged the Guilford County Courthouse in Greensboro, Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 9; vandalization and rock throwing in Greensboro, Doc. 52 at ¶ 33; property damage and looting in Raleigh, id. at ¶ 32; and unspecified violence and looting in Fayetteville. Id. at ¶ 34. There is some evidence that there were a few threats of property damage in Graham, see id. at ¶ 49; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 10; Doc. 52-1 at 5, but there is no evidence of actual property damage in or around the courthouse square.
At some point around this time, the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office decided to deny access to the grounds immediately surrounding the courthouse to all protest groups. Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 11. The Sheriff’s Office considers this to be a “temporary policy” intended to stay in place “during this time of heightened tension” and “while the political process plays out.” Id. The Sheriff’s Office considers this total prohibition to be necessary in light of the violence and property damage in other North Carolina cities, the difficulty in ensuring the safety of protestors and the public given the limited space on the courthouse grounds inside the roundabout if two competing groups both wish to have access to the location at the same time, and the need to prevent conflict on the courthouse grounds from escalating into violence or destruction of property. Id. at ¶¶ 9–11.
While the scope of the prohibition is not entirely clear, as best the Court can tell, the Sheriff prohibits any protestors on the courthouse steps, the sidewalks immediately adjacent to and surrounding the courthouse, the space between the sidewalk and the monument, the crosswalk beside the monument, and on or beside the monument itself. See Doc. 54-9 at ¶¶ 11, 13. The prohibition remained in place for approximately two
8
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 8 of 16

months, though since the Court indicated a preliminary injunction was likely the prohibition has been somewhat relaxed. See Doc. 59-1.
Despite the prohibition, individual plaintiffs engaged in protests or attempted to engage in protests. See, e.g., Doc. 2-2; Doc. 2-9. The protestors regularly gather in Sesquicentennial Park, on the northwest corner of the square, Doc. 50-1 at ¶¶ 2, 6–7; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 13, and, while not completely clear, the Court infers that protestors are allowed on the sidewalks on the outer rim of the square. See Doc. 2-4 at ¶¶ 13–14.
Protestors have attempted to protest on the courthouse grounds but have been prevented from doing so on multiple occasions by Sheriff’s deputies and physical impediments such as barricades put up by the County Defendants. Doc. 2-4 at ¶¶ 3–13; Doc. 47-8 at 2–3; Doc. 59-19 at ¶ 2-3. On multiple occasions throughout June and July and into August, the plaintiffs and other protestors have been explicitly threatened with arrest, see, e.g., Doc. 2-5 at ¶¶ 2-10, or had access restricted, often upon implicit threat of arrest. Docs. 47-8 at ¶ 3; 59-18 at ¶¶ 6-7, 10; 59-19 at ¶¶ 5, 8. Others have been arrested for coming too close to, but not on, the monument or flower bed, or coming onto the courthouse sidewalks or steps. Doc. 52 at ¶ 46; Doc. 47-8 at ¶ 6; Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 14. Doc. 50-1 at ¶¶ 10–12.
Despite tensions between protestors and counter-protestors, the protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. Doc. 52 at ¶ 44. Two pro-monument protestors were arrested for simple assault and disorderly conduct on June 2, see id., two people were arrested following a physical altercation on June 21, Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 8, and one person was arrested for carrying a weapon at a protest. Id. at ¶ 10. Otherwise, there is no evidence of actual
9
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 9 of 16

violence. See Doc. 59-19 at ¶ 8. There is also no evidence that any property has been defaced or destroyed during any of the protests. There have, however, been a few threats of violence, including the use of weapons, and a few threats to damage the monument on social media. See, e.g., Doc. 52-1; see also 54-9 at ¶¶ 9–10.
After the Court indicated a preliminary injunction was likely and, inter alia, gave the County Defendants time to plan, the County Defendants enacted a new policy governing the use of the courthouse grounds. See Doc. 58-1. There is no affirmative evidence in the form of an affidavit or declaration that the County Defendants will not return to a total prohibition on protests if the injunction does not issue, and the County Defendants have not contended that the motion for preliminary injunction is moot.
The plaintiffs contend this new policy remains overly broad and otherwise is constitutionally infirm. Doc. 60. The defendants contend the new policy imposes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored. But the only question raised in the pending motion is whether the total prohibition on protests should be enjoined. Whether the new policy violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights is not ripe for review; if the plaintiffs wish to challenge it, they will need to amend their pleadings and file a new motion for preliminary injunction. The Court expresses no opinion on the new policy.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; the equities favor a temporary restraining order; and a temporary
10
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 10 of 16

restraining order serves the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The First Amendment prohibits the enactment of laws “abridging the freedom of
speech . . . or the right of the people to peaceably assemble . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. 1; Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015). Under long-established First Amendment law, governmental entities are “strictly limited” in their ability to regulate private speech in public fora. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469 (2009); Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 681 (4th Cir. 2019), as amended (Jan. 9, 2019). When the government maintains property which has been used as a traditional public forum for the expression of opinions, the government is required to accommodate all speakers and may only restrict the time, manner, and place of speech. See, e.g., Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438, 443 (4th Cir. 2005). Such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly drawn to serve a significant state interest, and leave open ample channels of communication of the information. Id. “Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177, (1983).
“Sidewalks, of course, are among those areas of public property that traditionally have been held open to the public for expressive activities and are clearly within those areas of public property that may be considered, generally without further inquiry, to be public forum property.” Grace, 461 U.S. at 179; accord Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738
11
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 11 of 16

F.3d 107, 121 (4th Cir. 2013) (treating area outside South Carolina State House as a public forum for First Amendment purposes); see also O’Connell v. Town of Burgaw, 262 F. Supp. 3d 316, 320 (E.D.N.C. 2017) (finding the Pender County Courthouse Square and its surrounding public streets and sidewalks was a public forum). For purposes of this motion, it is undisputed that the courthouse steps, the sidewalks surrounding it, including the paved “reserved” space between the sidewalk and the monument, and the lawns at the courthouse corners are a traditional public forum. See Doc. 54 at ¶ 18.
The Sheriff’s long-term policy prohibits all protests on the courthouse steps, grounds, and sidewalks, regardless of content, and in this sense it is content-neutral. See generally Ross v. Early, 746 F.3d 546, 550, 552 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding a city policy that applied to all protestors was content-neutral). The plaintiffs have not contended otherwise for purposes of this motion. See Doc. 48.
It is highly doubtful that the Sheriff’s total prohibition on protests on the sidewalks, grounds, and steps of the courthouse, should it continue or resume, will survive scrutiny. The Supreme Court has held that a total prohibition against protests on the sidewalks surrounding a courthouse is unconstitutional where the prohibition does not sufficiently serve those public interests that are urged as its justification. Grace, 461 U.S. at 181. The Supreme Court acknowledged “the necessity to protect persons and property or to maintain proper order and decorum” within a courthouse’s grounds but noted that a “total ban” on protests which do not “obstruct[ ] the sidewalks or access to the Building, threaten[ ] injury to any person or property, or in any way interfere[ ] with the orderly
12
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 12 of 16

administration of the building or other parts of the grounds” is “no more necessary for the maintenance of peace and tranquility on the public sidewalks surrounding the [courthouse] than on any other sidewalks in the city.” Id. at 182.
The County Defendants contend that the need to prevent damage to the courthouse and to protect the public justify the total prohibition. Doc. 54-9 at ¶11. The County Defendants must show that the proffered harms are “real, not merely conjectural,” and that the policy “alleviate[s] these harms in a direct and material way.” Satellite Broad. & Comm’cns Ass’n v. F.C.C., 275 F.3d 337, 356 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Turner Broad. Sys. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994).3 But here, just as in Grace, there is no evidence of any obstruction of the sidewalks or access to the courthouse. There is no evidence that protests have ever disrupted the ordinary functions at the courthouse or even that protests have ever taken place at times when the courthouse is open for operation. Like Grace, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs here have threatened injury to any person or have interfered with the orderly administration of the building. There is limited evidence of a very small number of vague threats of property damage, see Doc. 54-9 at ¶ 10; Doc. 52 at ¶ 49, but it is not recent. Likewise, the evidence of property damage in other cities and counties is now many weeks old. A total prohibition on protests on the courthouse grounds is an extreme remedy, it is not narrowly tailored, and it does not sufficiently serve these proposed justifications. Grace, 461 U.S. at 182.
3 The Court omits internal citations, alterations, and quotation marks throughout this opinion, unless otherwise noted. See United States v. Marshall, 872 F.3d 213, 217 n.6 (4th Cir. 2017).
13
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 13 of 16

The County Defendants also point out that the space around the monument, which is the focus of the protests, is small and that conflict is likely to result from allowing protestors and counter-protestors access to the space between the monument and the courthouse. If that is so, and it appears to be, the County is free to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protests in this small space. But a total, long-term prohibition is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 800 (1989). The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that the Sheriff’s total long-term prohibition on protests on the steps, grounds, and sidewalks surrounding the courthouse is unconstitutional.
To the extent the plaintiffs contend that the narrow curb separating the monument flower beds from the street on the north, a parking space on the east, the area between the monument and the sidewalk on the north, and the crosswalk on the west is a traditional public forum, the present record does not support that conclusion. There is no evidence that the government has historically “made the space available—either by designation or long-standing custom—for ‘expressive public conduct’ or ‘expressive activity,’ and the space is compatible with such activity.” Davison, 912 F.3d at 681 (quoting Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mote, 422 F.3d 438, 443 (4th Cir. 2005)). As to the crosswalk space beside the monument, that is part of the roadway. The evidence shows it is very close to a parking space and could be used by a vehicle to back out of the parking space.4 As to
4The evidence does disclose that Sheriff’s deputies prohibited access to the crosswalk by the monument during a protest when the streets were closed to vehicular traffic. See Doc. 47-8 at 2-3. The plaintiffs contend that the crosswalk should always be available for protest and have not
14
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 14 of 16

the narrow curb separating the monument flower beds from the street and reserved space and as to the crosswalk beside the monument, the plaintiffs have not established that they are likely to prevail on the merits.
II. Irreparable Injury “[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”  Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373–74 (1976). The plaintiffs here have already been denied their First Amendment free speech rights for some weeks by the total prohibition of protests on the courthouse grounds. The issues are matters of intense public interest and discussion in the here and now. The plaintiffs are thus likely to suffer irreparable injury. This injury is imminent and immediate as the plaintiffs have ongoing plans for protests about and near the monument, they have been blocked from accessing the courthouse grounds, and they have been threatened with arrest if they attempt to pass through the Sheriff’s barricades. There have been shifting enforcement practices recently as to the prohibition, but the total prohibition was in place for weeks and there is no evidence it will not be resumed.
III. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest An injunction of a likely unconstitutional governmental practice ordinarily does
not harm the government, see Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002), and upholding constitutional rights “surely serves” the public interest. Id. These factors favor a preliminary injunction against the total prohibition of protests.
suggested the County Defendants should be enjoined from restricting access to the crosswalk when the street was closed.
15
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 15 of 16

No party took advantage of the Court’s invitation to submit language for an emergency exception. The Court nonetheless concludes an exception is appropriate and in the public interest. For example, if someone on the sidewalk had a heart attack and was unresponsive, prohibiting access so emergency personnel could reach the person is a good idea; one can imagine any number of exigent situations, however unlikely or rare, where a very short total prohibition would be necessary. An injunction which enjoined the defendants from acting in the face of such an emergency would be overbroad. Therefore, the Court will include an explicit provision that the injunction does not prohibit the defendants from “temporarily restricting access” to the outdoor Courthouse spaces “during short-term emergency situations.” For clarity, even though it seems obvious, a protest, even a large protest, does not constitute a short-term emergency situation; if it did, the injunction would be meaningless in the context of this case.
CONCLUSION The County Defendants imposed a total prohibition on protests in the traditional public forum of outdoor areas surrounding the Alamance County Historic Courthouse. The total prohibition is not a time, place, and manner restriction, and however strong the governmental interests are, the total prohibition is not narrowly tailored. The plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction, which will issue by separate order. This the 14th day of August, 2020.
________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 62 Filed 08/14/20 Page 16 of 16

 
 Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 4 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 5 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 6 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 7 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 8 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 9 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 10 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 11 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 12 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 13 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 14 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 15 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 16 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 17 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 18 of 19

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 57 Filed 08/07/20 Page 19 of 19

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR )

THE ADVANCEMENT OF

)

COLORED PEOPLE ALAMANCE )

COUNTY BRANCH, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JERRY PETERMAN, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

1:20-CV-613

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The plaintiffs Alamance County Branch of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People, Tamara O. Kersey, Colleen Tenae Turner, Terence

Colin Dodd, Destiny Clarke, Annie Simpson, Nerissa Rivera, Adam Rose, and Gregory

Drumwright, move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and LR 65.1 for a preliminary

injunction prohibiting the defendants from prohibiting protests on outdoor spaces around

the Alamance County Historic Courthouse grounds. After review of the evidence and

upon consideration of arguments of counsel, and as found in more detail in the opinion

and order filed concomitantly herewith, the Court finds and concludes:

1. The plaintiffs are likely to be successful on their claims that the County

Defendants’ total prohibition of protests on the steps of, sidewalks

surrounding, and grounds of the Alamance County Historic Courthouse

violates their First Amendment rights. The long-term total prohibition of

protests on these traditional public forums is not a time, place and manner

Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 63 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 3

restriction of speech, nor is it narrowly tailored to protect legitimate governmental interests. 2. The plaintiffs regularly protest and currently plan to protest in the imminent future in the public spaces around the Square in Graham and want to protest in the traditional public forum where the County Defendants have prohibited protests. They are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief. 3. The equities favor a preliminary injunction. 4. A preliminary injunction restraining unconstitutional prohibitions on First Amendment rights serves the public interest. Based on these findings and conclusions, and for reasons explained in more detail in an Order entered concomitantly herewith, it is ORDERED that: 1. The plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Doc. 47, is GRANTED to the extent stated herein. 2. The defendants Terry S. Johnson, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Alamance County; Eddie Boswell, in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner; Steve Carter, in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner; Bill Lashley, in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner; Amy Scott Galey, in her official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner; Tim Sutton, in his official capacity as Alamance County Commissioner; and Bryan Hagood, in his official capacity as Alamance County Manager, and their officers, attorneys, agents, and employees and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them are hereby RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from prohibiting all protests on the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 63 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 3

following spaces in and around the Alamance County Historic Courthouse in Graham, North Carolina:
a. the steps on the north, east, south, and west sides of the Courthouse steps;
b. the lawns between the sidewalks and the Courthouse; c. the sidewalk encircling the Courthouse and the shorter walkways
connecting the steps on each side to that encircling sidewalk; and d. the area marked “reserved” between the Courthouse sidewalk and the
Confederate monument, where cars do not drive or park. 3. Nothing in this Order prohibits the defendants from imposing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for use of Courthouse spaces. Nothing in this Order prohibits the defendants from temporarily restricting access to the outdoor Courthouse spaces set forth in Paragraph 2 during short-term emergency situations. 4. In the Court’s discretion, the bond requirement under Rule 65(c) is waived. 5. Upon receipt, the defendants Johnson and Hagood shall immediately provide Notice of this Injunction to their officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with them.
This the 14th day of August, 2020, at 4:45 PM.
________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Case 1:20-cv-00613-CCE-LPA Document 63 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 3