IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50610

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee Cross - Appellant

v.

GREG ABBOTT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Chairman of the 

State Preservation Board; ROD WELSH, Executive Director of Texas State 

Preservation Board, 

 Defendants - Appellants Cross - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Texas State Preservation Board 

Executive Director Rod Welsh appeal a district court judgment declaring that 

they violated the First Amendment rights of Freedom From Religion 

Foundation, Incorporated (“FFRF”). However, appellants do not challenge the 

merits of the district court’s finding that they violated FFRF’s First 

Amendment rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Rather, they

argue, based on principles of sovereign immunity, that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to enter retrospective relief against them. They further argue that 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

2

there is no longer jurisdiction to enter prospective relief because the 

controversy is not ongoing. FFRF cross-appeals the district court’s failure to 

grant prospective injunctive relief and the district court’s summary judgment 

dismissal of FFRF’s unbridled discretion First Amendment claims against 

Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh.

We find that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 

FFRF sought prospective relief, and there was, and still is, a live controversy 

between the parties. However, the district court did not have jurisdiction to

enter a retrospective declaratory judgment. Therefore, we VACATE the 

judgment and REMAND to the district court to consider FFRF’s request for 

injunctive relief and enter appropriate prospective relief for FFRF. 

Additionally, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on 

FFRF’s unbridled discretion claims, clarify the appropriate application of the 

unbridled discretion doctrine in the context of a limited public forum, and 

REMAND for the district court to apply that standard in the first instance.

I

The Texas State Preservation Board (“the Board”) is a state agency that 

preserves and maintains the Texas Capitol and its grounds. TEX. GOV’T CODE

§ 443.007(a)(1). Governor Abbott is the chairman of the Board, which allows 

private citizens to display exhibits within the Texas Capitol building. TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 443.004(a); TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 111.13. Each exhibit application 

must be sponsored by the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a member of the 

Texas Senate, or a member of the Texas House of Representatives. TEX. ADMIN.

CODE § 111.13. Each exhibit must also serve a “public purpose,” defined as:

The promotion of the public health, education, safety, morals, 

general welfare, security, and prosperity of all of the inhabitants 

or residents within the state, the sovereign powers of which are 

exercised to promote such public purpose or public business. The 

chief test of what constitutes a public purpose is that the public 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

3

generally must have a direct interest in the purpose and the 

community at large is to be benefitted. This does not include 

activities which promote a specific viewpoint or issue and could be 

considered lobbying. Political rallies, receptions, and campaign 

activities are prohibited in the public areas of the Capitol.

Id.

FFRF is a non-profit organization that advocates for the separation of 

church and state and educates on matters of nontheism. On July 20, 2015, after 

FFRF learned that a Christian nativity scene had been approved by the Board 

and displayed in the Texas State Capitol, FFRF submitted an application to 

the Board regarding a Bill of Rights nativity exhibit. The application requested 

that the exhibit be displayed in the Texas Capitol building from December 18, 

2015 to December 23, 2015. The application was sponsored by Texas 

Representative Donna Howard, and it included the following “artist’s mockup 

and diagram” of the proposed display, which depicts Benjamin Franklin, 

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Statute of Liberty gathered 

around a manger containing the Bill of Rights.

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

4

The display was to be accompanied by a banner reading, “Happy Winter 

Solstice / At this Season of the Winter Solstice, we honor reason and the Bill of

Rights (adopted December 15, 1791) / Keep State & Church Separate / On 

Behalf of Texas Members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.” 

According to the application, the exhibit had several purposes: “[t]o educate 

the public,” to “celebrate the 224th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of 

Rights,” “to celebrate the Winter Solstice on December 22,” and “to educate 

the public about the religious and nonreligious diversity within the State.” The 

Board approved the application, and, at the request of the Capitol Events and 

Exhibits Coordinator, the following language was added to the banner: 

“Private display, not endorsed by the state.” 

FFRF’s exhibit was displayed in the Texas Capitol building from 

December 18, 2015 to December 22, 2015. The day before the display was to be 

taken down, Governor Abbott sent a letter to then Executive Director of the 

Board John Sneed urging him to “remove this display from the Capitol 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

5

immediately.” The letter explained that the exhibit was inappropriate for 

display because “[s]ubjecting an image held sacred by millions of Texans to the 

Foundation’s tasteless sarcasm does nothing to promote the morals and the 

general welfare,” “the exhibit promotes ignorance and falsehood insofar as it 

suggests that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson 

worshipped (or would worship) the bill of rights in the place of Jesus,” and “it 

is hard to imagine how the general public ever could have a direct interest in 

mocking others’ religious beliefs.” Mr. Sneed removed the exhibit that same 

day. 

On July 21, 2016, FFRF submitted another exhibit application that was

identical to the previous application. On August 8, 2016, Mr. Sneed stated that 

“any application to display the same exhibit which was removed last year will 

be denied for failure to satisfy the public purpose requirement.” Citing to the 

letter from Governor Abbott, Mr. Sneed explained that the exhibit does not 

promote a public purpose because “the exhibit purposefully mocked Christians 

and Christianity by crudely satirizing one of the most sacred symbols of the 

Christian faith.”

In February 2016, FFRF filed a complaint against Governor Abbott and 

Mr. Welsh in their individual and official capacities, alleging: (1) a free-speech 

claim under the First Amendment; (2) an equal protection claim under the 

Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a claim under the Establishment Clause of the 

First Amendment; (4) a claim of unbridled discretion under the First 

Amendment; and (5) a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.1

FFRF sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration “that 

the criteria to approve exhibits for display in the State Capitol, facially and/or 

as applied by the Defendants, violate” the First Amendment and an injunction 

1 The complaint was amended in May 2016. 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

6

preventing “the Defendants from excluding the Plaintiff’s exhibit at issue from 

future display.”

On June 21, 2016, the district court dismissed the claims against Mr. 

Welsh in his individual capacity on qualified immunity grounds. On December 

20, 2016, the district court granted Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh summary 

judgment on FFRF’s equal protection, due process, and unbridled discretion 

claims. On October 13, 2017, the district court granted FFRF summary 

judgment on its viewpoint discrimination First Amendment claims against 

Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh in their official capacities and dismissed the 

Establishment Clause claim against Governor Abbott in his individual 

capacity on qualified immunity grounds. The district court found that there 

remained a material dispute of fact as to FFRF’s Establishment Clause claims 

against Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh in their official capacities and FFRF’s 

viewpoint discrimination First Amendment claim against Governor Abbott in 

his individual capacity. 

On May 11, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation of voluntary 

dismissal as to the remaining claims. The court dismissed the remaining

claims on May 14, 2018 and entered a final judgment on June 19, 2018. In 

relevant part, the final judgment stated:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is 

granted in favor of FFRF on FFRF’s First Amendment freedom of 

speech claim; and 

IT IS FURTHER DECLARED that Defendants violated FFRF’s 

First Amendment rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination 

as a matter of law when the FFRF’s exhibit was removed from the 

Texas Capitol building under the circumstances of this case.

The parties timely appealed and cross-appealed.

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

7

II

“We review questions of federal jurisdiction de novo.” Envtl.

Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2009). This 

includes questions of sovereign immunity, Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary & 

Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014), and mootness, Envtl.

Conservation Org., 529 F.3d at 524. We also review the district court’s 

summary judgment dismissal de novo, employing the same standard used by 

the district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” FED R. CIV. P. 56(a). 

III

We begin by addressing jurisdiction. Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh 

argue that the district court’s declaratory judgment is retrospective and 

therefore barred by sovereign immunity. They further argue that there is no 

longer jurisdiction to enter prospective relief because the controversy is not

ongoing. FFRF argues that the declaratory judgment “operates effectively as 

prospective relief against ongoing misconduct” and is therefore not barred by 

sovereign immunity. FFRF also cross-appeals the district court’s failure to 

grant prospective injunctive relief. 

“State sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty 

that the states enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution and the 

Eleventh Amendment, and it was preserved intact by the Constitution.” 

Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2005). In most 

cases, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of 

jurisdiction to hear private suits against states. Warnock v. Pecos Cty., 88 F.3d 

341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996). However, the Supreme Court has recognized several 

exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity. A state may waive its sovereign 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

8

immunity “at its pleasure,” and, in some circumstances, “Congress may 

abrogate it by appropriate legislation.” Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. 

Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 253–54 (2011).

The Supreme Court’s holding in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), 

provides a third exception. Under Ex parte Young, a litigant may sue a state 

official in his official capacity as long as the lawsuit seeks prospective relief to 

redress an ongoing violation of federal law. NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxon, 804 

F.3d 389, 394–95 (5th Cir. 2015). The applicability of this exception has been 

“tailored to conform as precisely as possible to those specific situations in which 

it is ‘necessary to permit the federal courts to vindicate federal rights and hold 

state officials responsible to the supreme authority of the United States.’” 

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 277 (1986) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & 

Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 105 (1984)). Therefore, in order to fall within 

the Ex parte Young exception, a suit must: (1) be brought against state officers 

who are acting in their official capacities; (2) seek prospective relief to redress 

ongoing conduct; and (3) allege a violation of federal, not state, law. NiGen 

Biotech, L.L.C., 804 F.3d at 394–95. 

FFRF’s suit falls within the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign 

immunity. FFRF sued Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh in their official 

capacities. FFRF alleged violations of the federal Constitution. And FFRF

sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration 

“that the criteria to approve exhibits for display in the State Capitol, facially 

and/or as applied by the Defendants, violate” the First Amendment and an 

injunction preventing “the Defendants from excluding the Plaintiff’s exhibit at 

issue from future display” (emphasis added).

Moreover, FFRF established an ongoing violation of federal law. 

Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh do not contest that Mr. Sneed’s letter to FFRF,

stating that “any application to display the same exhibit which was removed 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

9

last year will be denied for failure to satisfy the public purpose requirement,” 

initially established the ongoing nature of the violation. Rather, they contend 

that the Supreme Court’s decision in Matel v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017),

constituted a sea change in the law, obligating plaintiffs to provide new 

evidence illustrating the ongoing nature of the violation. 

Even assuming that a sea change in the law would obligate FFRF to reestablish the ongoing nature of the violation, Matel did not constitute such a 

change. In Matel, the Court explained, “[w]e have said time and again that ‘the 

public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are 

themselves offensive to some of their hearers.’” Id. at 1763 (emphasis added) 

(quoting Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969)). For this proposition, in 

addition to Street, the Court cited eleven previous Supreme Court decisions.

Id. Matel clarified the contours of the First Amendment; it did not constitute a

sea change in the law.

Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh can also be understood as arguing that 

Matel has mooted the case. Because it is now clear that speech cannot be 

prohibited on the basis of offensiveness, they assert that the complained-of 

conduct will not recur. “A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ 

or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—‘when the issues presented are no 

longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” 

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 

455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)). “A defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance 

moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear 

the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” 

Already, LLC, 568 U.S. at 91 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000)). 

Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh have only presented arguments through 

counsel that their behavior will change post-Matel. Importantly, they have not

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

10

retracted their previous statement to FFRF that future applications for the 

relevant display will be denied. While we presume that counsel’s 

representations on behalf of Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh are made in good 

faith, our precedent requires that we view attempts to obtain a vacatur of relief 

“with a jaundiced eye.” Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 

325 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, we find that the district court had jurisdiction 

to entertain the suit, and the controversy is ongoing.

The district court did not, however, have jurisdiction to award FFRF 

purely retrospective relief. Papasan, 478 U.S. at 278. In order to determine 

whether relief is permitted under the Ex parte Young exception, the court 

should look to the “substance rather than to the form of the relief sought,” and 

consider the policies underlying the decision in Ex parte Young. Id. at 279. The 

backwards-looking, past-tense declaratory judgment issued by the district 

court is “tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of law, even 

though styled as something else.” Id. at 278; see also Green v. Mansour, 474 

U.S. 64, 68–69 (1985) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred a claim 

for declaratory relief once the claim for injunctive relief was rendered moot).

While it is true that the declaratory judgment could have some future effect by 

clarifying the contours of the First Amendment and deterring similar actions 

by the state, “compensatory or deterrence interests are insufficient to overcome 

the dictates of the Eleventh Amendment.” Green, 474 U.S. at 68.

Therefore, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND for the district 

court to enter appropriate prospective relief for FFRF. FFRF argues that in 

addition to declaratory relief, it is entitled to injunctive relief. The district court 

never explicitly addressed FFRF’s request. Because the issuing of injunctive 

relief “involv[es] some exercise of discretion by the district court . . ., we deem 

it advisable for the matter to be decided by the district court in the first 

instance” on remand. Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Opelousas v. Dent, 982 F.2d 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

11

917, 922 (5th Cir. 1993); Peaches Entm’t Corp. v. Entm’t Repertoire Assocs., 

Inc., 62 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 1995) (“We review the trial court’s granting or 

denial of permanent injunction for abuse of discretion.”).

IV

FFRF also appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of 

its First Amendment unbridled discretion claims. FFRF argues that the 

Board’s public purpose requirement violates the First Amendment on its face

because it delegates overly broad discretion to government officials. Governor 

Abbott and Mr. Welsh contend that the district court did not err in finding that 

the definition of “public purpose” “provides the Board with a reasonable 

framework with which to accept or deny exhibit applications in the limited 

public forum context.” 

The First Amendment prohibits laws that “abridge[e] the freedom of 

speech.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. However, “the government need not permit all 

forms of speech on property that it owns and controls.” Int’l Soc’y for Krishna 

Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992). Rather, the Supreme Court 

“has adopted a forum analysis as a means of determining when the 

Government’s interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended purpose 

outweighs the interest of those wishing to use the property for other purposes.” 

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985).

There are two broad categories of forums: (1) traditional and designated

public forums and (2) limited public forums and nonpublic forums. See Chiu v. 

Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 260 F.3d 330, 344–47 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Walker 

v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239, 2250–51

(2015); Three Expo Events, L.L.C. v. City of Dallas, 182 F.Supp.3d 614, 624 

n.11 (N.D. Tex. 2016). Traditional public forums are places such as sidewalks, 

streets, and parks that have traditionally been devoted to assembly or debate. 

Chiu, 260 F.3d at 344. Designated public forums are places that the 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

12

government has designated for the same widespread use as traditional public 

forums. Fairchild v. Liberty Indep. Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 747, 758 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Regulations on speech in traditional and designated public forums are subject 

to strict scrutiny review—they must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling 

state interest. Id. Limited public forums are places that the government has 

opened for public expression of particular kinds or by particular groups. Chiu, 

260 F.3d at 346. Nonpublic forums are forums that are not open for public 

communication by tradition or designation. Id. at 347. The government can 

restrict speech in a limited public forum or nonpublic forum as long as the 

restriction is (1) reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and (2) 

does not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint. Id. at 346–47. 

The Supreme Court has dealt with a number of facial challenges to prior 

restraints on speech. “Facial invalidation is, manifestly, strong medicine.” 

Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 580 (1998) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, the Court has long held that “law[s] 

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, [are] unconstitutional.” Shuttlesworth v. City of 

Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150–51 (1969). “[T]he constitution requires . . .

neutral criteria to [e]nsure that the licensing decision is not based on the 

content or viewpoint of the speech being considered.” City of Lakewood v. Plain 

Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 760 (1988). Closely related to viewpoint 

discrimination, this is often referred to as the unbridled discretion doctrine. 

See id. at 758.

Unbridled discretion runs afoul of the First Amendment because it risks 

self-censorship and creates proof problems in as-applied challenges. Id. at 757–

59. “[T]he mere existence of the licensor’s unfettered discretion, coupled with 

the power of prior restraint, intimidates parties into censoring their own 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

13

speech, even if the discretion and power are never actually abused.” Id. at 757. 

Moreover, even where self-censorship is avoided, “the absence of express 

standards makes it difficult to distinguish, ‘as applied,’ between a licensor’s 

legitimate denial of a permit and its illegitimate abuse of censorial power.” Id.

at 758. Any “eventual relief may be ‘too little and too late.’” Id.

Under the unbridled discretion doctrine, the Supreme Court has struck 

down prior restraints such as: (1) a licensing scheme limiting public 

demonstrations on city streets to only those that benefit “public welfare, peace, 

safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience,” Shuttlesworth, 394 

U.S. at 149–50, (2) an ordinance authorizing the mayor to evaluate 

applications for the installation of news racks on public property without any 

stated criteria, City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 753, 769, and (3) a permitting 

scheme for parades, assemblies, and demonstrations that required payment of 

a fee based on the expenses incident to the maintenance of “public order,” 

Forsyth Cty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 126–27, 132–33 (1992). 

The Supreme Court has not explicitly elaborated the unbridled 

discretion doctrine in a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum case. Nor do 

the parties identify that we have. Among out sister circuits, however, “there is 

broad agreement that, even in limited and nonpublic forums, investing 

governmental officials with boundless discretion over access to the forum 

violates the First Amendment.” Child Evangelism Fellowship of MD, Inc. v. 

Montgomery Cty. Pub. Sch., 457 F.3d 376, 386 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Amidon 

v. Student Assoc. of the State Univ. of NY at Albany, 508 F.3d 94, 102–05 (2d. 

Cir. 2007); Child Evangelism Fellowship of SC v. Anderson Sch. Dist. Five, 470 

F.3d 1062, 1069–70 (4th Cir. 2006) (striking down fee waiver policy based on 

“the district’s best interest”); Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438, 

445–46 (4th Cir. 2005); Southworth v. Bd. of Regents, 307 F.3d 566, 575–80 

(7th Cir. 2002); DeBoer v. Vill. of Oak Park, 267 F.3d 558, 572–74 (7th Cir. 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

14

2001) (striking down policy requiring events to “benefit[] the public as a 

whole”); Roach v. Stouffer, 560 F.3d 860, 869–70 (8th Cir. 2009); Lewis v. 

Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 1078–81 (8th Cir. 2001) (striking down policy allowing 

denial of custom license plates contrary to “public policy”); Kaahumanu v. 

Hawaii, 682 F.3d 789, 805–07 (9th Cir. 2012); Atlanta Journal & Constitution 

v. City of Atlanta Dept. of Aviation, 322 F.3d 1298, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2003); 

Sentinel Commc’ns Co. v. Watts, 936 F.2d 1189, 1196–1200; (11th Cir. 1991); 

Griffin v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309, 1321–25 (Fed. Cir. 2002); 

Preminger v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299, 1308–10 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Indeed, the dangers associated with unbridled discretion are no less present in 

limited public forums, and Governor Abbott and Mr. Welsh do not argue to the 

contrary. 

That is not to say, however, that the unbridled discretion analysis will 

be the same for all forum categories. The considerations underlying the 

adoption of a forum-specific analysis in the as-applied context are pertinent to

the facial, unbridled discretion context. In the as-applied context, we have 

explained that:

[i]f, simply by opening a facility for limited public discourse, the 

government were to designate a public forum, the regulation of 

which would be subject to strict scrutiny, the government might 

elect not to open such property for any public discourse. That result 

would conflict with the broad First Amendment policy of 

encouraging public discourse on issues of community interest.

Chiu, 260 F.3d at 347 (citing Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 

666, 681 (1998)). Similarly, where space, time, or other constraints necessitate 

a pre-approval scheme, if, simply by opening a facility for limited public 

discourse, the government subjected itself to the same unbridled discretion 

analysis that applies in the traditional public forum context, it may elect not 

to open such property for any public discourse.

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

15

The district court agreed. First, relying primarily on the Fourth Circuit’s 

opinion in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland, it concluded that the 

unbridled discretion doctrine applies to limited public forums. See 457 F.3d at 

387. Then, citing the Federal Circuit’s Griffin opinion, it explained that 

because discretionary access is a defining characteristic of a limited public 

forum, the government should be afforded more discretion to use prior 

restraints on speech in limited public forums than in traditional public forums. 

See 288 F.3d at 1324. The district court then concluded that “the ‘public 

purpose’ definition and test provides the Board a reasonable framework with 

which to accept or deny exhibition applications in the limited public forum 

context.” 

To the extent the district court only considered the reasonableness of the 

public purpose test, this approach falls short, as the Fourth Circuit 

persuasively explained in Child Evangelism of Maryland. There, the court 

considered whether a school district’s take-home flyer program violated the 

unbridled discretion doctrine. 457 F.3d at 378. The policy implementing the 

program required that flyers be sponsored or endorsed by one of five groups 

and approved by the school district. Id. at 379–80. The school district also 

retained the power to withdraw approval if it determined that a flyer “would 

undermine the intent of [the policy] . . . or could reasonably be predicted to 

cause substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school 

activities.” Id. at 380. Under the policy, the plaintiffs were denied the ability 

to distribute flyers informing parents about their “Good News Club” meetings, 

at which children would sing songs, play games, learn Bible stories, and pray 

after school hours. Id. at 378–79. 

The Fourth Circuit found that it need not determine what type of forum 

the take-home flyer program was because, even assuming the program was a 

nonpublic forum, the district court had erred in determining that it was subject 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

16

only to a test of reasonableness. Id. at 383–84. Relying on a number of Supreme 

Court cases, the court noted that restrictions on speech in limited public 

forums and nonpublic forums must be both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. 

Id. at 384 (citing Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local 

Educators Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983); Finley, 524 U.S. at 615 n.10). The court 

held that “viewpoint neutrality require[s] not just that a government refrain 

from explicit viewpoint discrimination, but also that it provide adequate 

safeguards to protect against the improper exclusion of viewpoints.” Id. at 384. 

Ultimately, the court struck down the take-home flyer program policy, finding 

that it “utterly fail[ed] to provide adequate protection for viewpoint neutrality.” 

Id. at 389.

Other circuits agree that the possibility of viewpoint discrimination is 

key to deciding unbridled discretion claims in the context of limited or 

nonpublic forums. See, e.g., Southworth, 307 F.3d at 575–80; Lewis, 253 F.3d 

at 1080; Roach, 560 F.3d at 869; Kaahumanu, 682 F.3d at 806; see also Atlanta 

Journal & Constitution, 322 F.3d at 1311. To the extent that the Federal 

Circuit’s opinion in Griffin introduced uncertainty on this point, the Federal 

Circuit recently clarified that application of the unbridled discretion doctrine 

in the nonpublic forum context requires the court to consider reasonableness 

and whether the regulation could be used to engage in “undetectable viewpoint 

discrimination.” Preminger, 517 F.3d at 1303. 

We agree that a reasonableness test would be insufficient. Consistent 

with Supreme Court guidance on limited public forums and nonpublic forums,

Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 46, and adhering to 

our precedent, Chiu, 260 F.3d at 349–50 (citing Hobbs v. Hawkins, 968 F.2d 

471, 481 (5th Cir. 1992)), we hold that prior restraints on speech in limited 

public forums must contain neutral criteria sufficient to prevent (1) censorship 

that is unreasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and (2) 

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-50610

17

viewpoint-based censorship. Because the district court only considered 

whether the public purpose criteria at issue in this case was reasonable, we 

REVERSE and REMAND for the district court to apply the correct unbridled 

discretion analysis in the first instance.2

V

The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment on FFRF’s unbridled discretion claims is 

REVERSED. The case is REMANDED for the district court to consider FFRF’s 

request for injunctive relief, enter appropriate prospective relief for FFRF, and 

apply the standards articulated herein to FFRF’s unbridled discretion claims.

2 In doing so, the district court “must consider the [government]’s authoritative 

construction[]” of the standard. Forsyth Cty., 505 U.S. at 131. However, “the doctrine 

forbidding unbridled discretion disallows” a presumption that the government will “act in 

good faith and adhere to standards absent from the ordinance’s face.” City of Lakewood, 486 

U.S. at 770.

 Case: 18-50610 Document: 00515371821 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/03/2020