Source: https://casetext.com/case/mastrovincenzo-v-city-of-new-york-3?passage=wwd5NCASre_PYP2C_kur9g&resultsNav=false
Timestamp: 2019-02-17 08:53:29
Document Index: 571345569

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20', '§ 453', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 32', '§ 20', '§ 21', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 1292', '§ 20', '§ 1', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20']

Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78 | Casetext
435 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2006)
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses0lockCiting BriefsBriefs12lockCiting CasesCiting Cases147
Mastrovincenzov.City of New York
Relies heavily on a case with negative history or treatment:Bery v. City of New York906 F. Supp. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
People v. Ndiaye
…In essence, defendant asks this court to proclaim, as a matter of law, that the jewelry she seeks to sell is…
…Judge Reinhart ultimately recommended that Plaintiff&apos;s First Amendment claims be denied. Chiefly, Plaintiff…
noting that Bery “left open the ‘difficult’ question of when the sale of assertedly artistic items constitutes protected speech”
holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results
Summary of this case from Am. Commercial Lines LLC v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate
holding that artists&apos; graffiti-painted clothing items "serve a predominantly expressive purpose and their sale is consequently protected under the First Amendment"
Summary of this case from Chase v. Town of Ocean City
Docket No. 04-2264-CV.
We consider here whether the application of the licensing requirement of the City of New York (the "City") to unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti violates either these vendors' rights under the First Amendment or a 1997 permanent injunction entered on consent of the City of New York (the " Bery injunction") by a district court in Bery v. City of New York, No. 94 Civ. 4253(MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1997). Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid, content-neutral restriction on speech and because we do not classify plaintiffs' merchandise as "paintings" within the meaning of the Bery injunction, we conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a "likelihood of success" on either claim. Accordingly, we vacate the order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Victor Marrero, Judge) granting a preliminary injunction against defendants and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
New York City's General Vendors Law regulates the sale or offering for sale of non-food goods and services in the public spaces of New York City. The GVL defines a "general vendor" as any person who "hawks, peddles, sells, leases or offers to sell or lease, at retail, [non-food] goods or services . . . in a public space." N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-452(b). At issue in this appeal is the provision of the GVL requiring, subject to certain exceptions described below, that "any individual [wishing] to act as a general vendor" must first obtain a general vendor's license from the DCA. Id. § 453. A one-year license costs two hundred dollars, id. § 20-454, and a licensee may apply each year for renewal of his license. The DCA must approve a renewal request if the applicant has complied with certain administrative requirements, paid all applicable taxes and fees, and not committed any violation that would support the revocation of his license. Id. §§ 20-456, 457, 459. City regulations specify that no more than 853 general vendor's licenses may be outstanding at any given time. See id. § 20-459(a) (providing that "the maximum number of licenses permitted to be in effect" shall be "[t]he number of licenses in effect . . . on the first day of September, nineteen hundred seventy-nine"); Bery, 97 F.3d at 692 (describing the 1979 passage of Local Law 50, which amended the Administrative Code and fixed the permissible number of outstanding licenses at 853). Because the permissible number of licenses has remained unchanged since 1979, and because current license-holders may annually renew their licenses, there is a substantial backlog of individuals seeking licenses.
For purposes of the GVL, a "public space" is defined as "[a]ll publicly owned property between the property lines on a street as such property lines are shown on the City Record including but not limited to a park, plaza, roadway, shoulder, tree space, sidewalk or parking space between such property lines. It shall also include, but not be limited to, publicly owned or leased land, buildings, piers, wharfs, stadiums and terminals." N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-452(d).
New York City Administrative Code § 20-453 provides, in full, that
[i]t shall be unlawful for any individual to act as a general vendor without having first obtained a license in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, except that it shall be lawful for a general vendor who hawks, peddles, sells or offers to sell, at retail, only newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets or other similar written matter, but no other items required to be licensed by any other provision of this code, to vend such without obtaining a license therefor.
The District Court noted in April 2004 that "[t]he waiting list for a general vendor's license has approximately 8000 names." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 283.
Due to a handful of statutory exemptions, the actual number of vendors legally selling non-food items at any given time exceeds 853. For instance, honorably discharged members of the United States armed forces who are veterans of any war or who served in the armed forces overseas are awarded licenses to vend publicly without being constrained by the license limit. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 32 ("Every honorably discharged member of the armed forces of the United States, who is a resident of this state and a veteran of any war, or who shall have served in the armed forces of the United States overseas . . . shall [acquire] the right to hawk, peddle, vend and sell goods, wares or merchandise or solicit trade upon the streets [by obtaining a special veteran's license at no cost]. . . ."); Bery, 97 F.3d at 692; Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 282 n. 1. Likewise, individuals selling "only newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets or other similar written matter" are exempted from the licensing requirement. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-453; Bery, 97 F.3d at 692 (describing the 1982 passage of Local Law 33, which amended the Administrative Code to exempt vendors of written materials from the GVL's licensing requirement). New York City has also agreed, under the terms of the Bery injunction, not to enforce its licensing requirement against individuals selling "paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture." See Background, II, post.
It is not disputed that the New York City Council ("City Council") — which is broadly authorized to enact regulations designed to promote and protect the welfare of New York City residents, see Charter of New York City § 21 (outlining the broad legislative authority of the City Council); see also Fisher Scientific Co. v. City of New York, 812 F.Supp. 22, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("The City Council and its committees possess and exercise all of the legislative power of the City of New York.") — enacted the licensing requirement for general vendors with a view toward promoting the public interest. According to the City Council,
the public health, safety and welfare are threatened by the unfettered use of city streets for commercial activity by unlicensed, and therefore illegal, general vendors. Such illicit operations have a pernicious effect on both the tax base and economic viability of the City. Unlicensed general vendors do not pay taxes, often sell stolen, defective or counterfeit merchandise. . . . The practice of selling their wares . . . impedes the flow of pedestrian traffic, caus[es] the overflow of traffic, and, at worst, it creates the potential for tragedy.
On June 9, 1994, a group of artists (the " Bery plaintiffs") brought suit against the City of New York for its refusal to exempt them from the licensing requirement of the GVL. The Bery plaintiffs were characterized first by the district court as "artists who sell their original paintings on public sidewalks and an artists' advocacy organization," Bery v. City of New York, 906 F.Supp. 163, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), and later by our Court as "individual artists engaged in painting, photography and sculpture and an artists' advocacy organization," Bery, 97 F.3d at 691; see Discussion, IV, post.
The Bery Court noted that "[v]isual art is as wide ranging in its depiction of ideas, concepts and emotions as any book, treatise, pamphlet or other writing," and concluded that the Bery plaintiffs' artwork was "expressive merchandise" that did not lose its status as protected speech merely because plaintiffs sought compensation for their art. Id. at 695-96. Despite a suggestion that the Bery plaintiffs' artwork was, by virtue of its status as visual art, automatically "entitled to full First Amendment protection," id. at 695, in fact, the Court's analysis proceeded in two distinct stages: first, the Bery plaintiffs' artwork was found to be sufficiently expressive to trigger First Amendment review of New York City's licensing requirement, id. at 696, and second, "the license requirement as it relate[d] to [the Bery plaintiffs] [was held to be] too sweeping to pass constitutional muster," id. at 697. In reaching the threshold conclusion — that the Bery plaintiffs' artwork was sufficiently expressive to trigger First Amendment review — the Bery Court explained that
The term "expressive merchandise" was used by the Bery Court as a kind of shorthand for the larger First Amendment question presented in that case — namely, whether the sale or dissemination of certain merchandise was predominantly expressive. See Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 695 (2d Cir. 1996) (recognizing that "[t]he sale of protected materials is also protected").
At a second stage of analysis, the Bery Court applied the First Amendment doctrine that governs content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions on protected speech and held that the Bery plaintiffs could likely demonstrate that New York City's licensing requirement was not "`narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'" and did not "`leave open ample alternative channels for communication.'" Id. at 697 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)). The Bery Court reasoned that New York City's licensing regime, by denying licenses to emerging artists such as the Bery plaintiffs, effectively "bar[red] an entire category of expression," id. at 697, and left plaintiffs with a lack of ample alternative venues for displaying their artwork, id. at 698.
Instead of contesting this preliminary determination in a trial on the merits or adjusting the substance of its licensing requirement, New York City consented to a permanent injunction (the " Bery injunction") prohibiting it from "enforcing [N.Y.C.] Admin. Code § 20-453 against any person who hawks, peddles, sells, leases or offers to sell or lease, at retail, any paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture, either exclusively or in conjunction with newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets or other similar written matter, in a public space[.]" Permanent Injunction on Consent dated Oct. 21, 1997, Bery v. City of New York, No. 94 Civ. 4253(MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1997); see also Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 283.
Both plaintiffs have formal training in the arts: Mastrovincenzo earned a degree in architecture, with a minor in graphic design and presentation, from the Pratt Institute of Technology in 2002; Santos studied communications, film and fine arts at Fordham University. Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 283-84.
Plaintiffs describe their "graffiti style" — alternatively dubbed the "hip-hop" style — as "highly stylized typography, iconography, and pictorial representation . . . [using] varying combinations of oil paints, spray paints, markers, and permanent paint pens" that they apply "primarily on hats and other items of clothing." Appellees' Br. at 3. Plaintiffs do not characterize their merchandise primarily as "clothing," but rather, as "artwork" on nontraditional canvases. Id. at 4. According to plaintiffs, "[e]ach piece is an individual work of art customized on the spot according to the client's request, and includes such things as names, characters, and pictures on the hats." Compl. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs further assert that they "charge different fees for their artwork based solely on the complexity and difficulty of the art they produce [and] do not charge anything for [the] items of clothing [themselves]." Id. ¶ 38.
Although the District Court, like the Bery Court, framed its inquiry solely in terms of whether plaintiffs' graffiti clothing constitutes "expressive merchandise," see Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 285 ("The issue in the present case is thus whether the items Plaintiffs offer for sale are expressive merchandise. Mere commercial goods . . . are not protected by the First Amendment."), we emphasize that the First Amendment protects speech rather than objects. Accordingly, the question presented is broader than that suggested by the District Court; we consider here whether plaintiffs' sale or dissemination of clothing painted with graffiti was predominantly expressive or not. See note 4, ante.
The District Court added that even if plaintiffs had not successfully challenged New York City's licensing requirement on First Amendment grounds, they could alternatively have prevailed on their Bery injunction claim. Citing what it described as the "broadly-written" language of the Bery injunction — that defendants City of New York and the DCA may not enforce § 20-453 against "any person who . . . sells . . . any paintings" — and the fact that the Bery injunction does not define the term "paintings," the District Court reasoned that "[a] painting does not lose its definition as painting, or generally as art, when it appears on something other than a framed canvas." Id. at 293. Accordingly, the District Court concluded that "[a]s written, the Bery Injunction provides protection to [p]laintiffs' works even if no . . . dispute arose as to whether the First Amendment does." Id.
On the contrary, the District Court went so far as to suggest that "[t]he original application of pigment to an article of clothing done for expressive reasons by an artist is no less a painting — in name, at least — than anything now exhibited on the walls of the Metropolitan Museum of Art." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 293.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) provides, in relevant part, that "the court of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from . . . interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions. . . ."
We review a district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The District Court abuses its discretion "when (1) its decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision — though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding — cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 2001) (footnotes omitted).
The Court may grant a preliminary injunction to stay government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory scheme when the moving party establishes [1] that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and [2] that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. [Because] [i]t is well settled that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury . . . [the relevant issue in this case is] [p]laintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
In distinguishing between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, we have noted that "[t]he typical preliminary injunction is prohibitory and generally seeks only to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the merits. A mandatory injunction, in contrast, is said to alter the status quo by commanding some positive act . . . [and] thus alters the traditional formula by requiring that the movant demonstrate a greater likelihood of success." Tom Doherty Assocs. v. Saban Entm't, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we first look to the terms of the injunction issued by the District Court, which reads:
We are aware that "the distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is not without ambiguities or critics" and often leads to "distinctions that are more semantic than substantive." Tom Doherty Assocs., 60 F.3d at 34 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Because "in borderline cases injunctive provisions containing essentially the same command can be phrased either in mandatory or prohibitory terms," Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 835, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994), we have, on exceptional occasions, looked beyond the terms of the injunction itself, see, e.g., SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1039-40 (2d Cir. 1990) (imposing a "substantial showing of likelihood of success" requirement despite recognizing that "the order is prohibitory in form"). Here, however, we need not look beyond the terms of the injunction because it clearly does not command the City of New York or the DCA to perform any specific tasks.
In determining whether the sale of plaintiffs' items constitutes protected speech for First Amendment purposes, the District Court briefly considered, but declined to apply, the First Amendment doctrine of expressive conduct. See, e.g., Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (holding that the First Amendment protects conduct that is intended to convey a "particularized message" and that is likely to be understood by viewers); Church of the Am. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197, 205 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2004) (acknowledging, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995), that while expressive conduct need not convey a message that is "narrow," "specific," or even "articulable," such a message must nonetheless be "particularized" and likely to be understood). Despite finding the expressive conduct test "instructive," the District Court concluded that "the expressiveness test for conduct," with its particularity-of-message requirement, is "ill-suited to determine the expressive quality of art." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 286-87. ("[I]f [Jackson] Pollock's `Lavender Mist' conveys a particularized message that is likely to be understood by the viewer, it is difficult to conceive of many works or art that would fail that test.").
We need not apply the doctrine of expressive conduct here because plaintiffs' conduct — namely, the sale and dissemination of their artistic objects — does not itself contain any expressive content. That is, plaintiffs' claims to First Amendment protection are not predicated on the theory that the act of distributing their artistic objects itself conveys a separate "particularized message" likely to be understood by an audience. Rather, plaintiffs assert that by disseminating to the public objects that they have invested with meaning through their artistry they are communicating directly through those objects — in short, that they are engaging in protected speech.
For purposes of First Amendment coverage, "the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression," Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995), extending its protection to include, inter alia, "pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings," Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115, 119-20, 93 S.Ct. 2680, 37 L.Ed.2d 492 (1973). In the words of the Supreme Court, if the First Amendment protected only expressive conduct "conveying a `particularized message,' [it] would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollack, music of Arnold Schöenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll." Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (internal citation omitted). Of equal importance to plaintiffs, "the degree of First Amendment protection" to which speech is entitled "is not diminished merely because the . . . speech is sold rather than given away." City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); see also Ayres v. City of Chicago, 125 F.3d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir. 1997) (noting that items "do not lose their [First Amendment] protection by being sold rather than given away.").
Our decision in Bery apparently remains at the forefront of the law concerning First Amendment protection for the sale of "expressive merchandise." See, e.g., ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 924 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Bery and holding that "[t]he protection of the First Amendment . . . includes . . . music, pictures, films, photographs, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, and sculptures."); White v. City of Sparks, 341 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1138 (D.Nev. 2004) ("Only the Second Circuit has gone so far as to award certain visual art — specifically paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures — the full and unquestioned protection of the First Amendment."). Yet, as we have noted above, even Bery offered little guidance as to the precise factors that courts should consider when evaluating the expressive capacity of particular goods.
It is said that during the Bauhaus period, painter Josef Albers would leave a pile of newspapers on a table in his classroom and instruct his students to turn the papers into works of art before he returned in one hour. There would always be one student who, ignoring his classmates' meticulous creations, would simply fold the paper and prop it up like a tent. Albers would then seize upon the tent and exclaim, "[T]his makes use of the soul of paper. Paper can fold without breaking. Paper has tensile strength, and a vast area can be supported by these two fine edges. This! — is a work of art in paper." Tom Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House 14-15 (1981) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs essentially ask us to import an Albersian definition of "art" into the First Amendment context. For the reasons set forth in text, we decline to do so.
Whatever may be said of Bery's analytic framework, see, e.g., White v. City of Sparks, 341 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1139 (D.Nev. 2004) ("Applying such a blanket presumption of protected status [as Bery] would not only be unnecessary . . . but would also be out of step with . . . the First Amendment's fundamental purpose — to protect expression."), it remains the law of the Circuit until and unless it is effectively superseded by decisions of the Supreme Court or formally revisited by the Court sitting en banc, see, e.g., United States v. Santiago, 268 F.3d 151, 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that we are bound by a prior panel's holding "unless it has been called into question by an intervening Supreme Court decision or by one of this Court sitting in banc."). We therefore turn to the "difficult" assignment left for us by the Bery Court.
At the outset, we must determine whether the sale of plaintiffs' goods is presumptively entitled to First Amendment protection, or more precisely, whether the expressive capacity of plaintiffs' goods is such that we automatically apply First Amendment scrutiny to regulations that restrict their sale or dissemination. In Bery, we made clear that only certain items — "paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures" — automatically trigger First Amendment review because the sale or dissemination of these items "always communicate[s] some idea or concept" to viewers. Bery, 97 F.3d at 696. Where, as in the instant case, items do not fall within one of these four categories, their sale must be classified as potentially expressive. The Bery Court placed in this second category "the crafts of the jeweler, the potter, and the silversmith," whose works "at times have expressive content." Id. As the District Court accurately summarized, the Bery Court was "unwilling to provide blanket protection for all jewelry, pottery and metalwork because such items do not always communicate an idea or concept to the viewer." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 289 (emphasis added). Instead, as the District Court observed, "[f]or these and other items, as distinct from paintings, photographs, prints and sculptures, courts must conduct case-by-case evaluations to determine whether the work at issue is sufficiently expressive." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, in the nature of things, some such items ultimately may be characterized as "expressive" while others may be deemed "mere commercial goods" — that is, goods whose characteristics suggest that their vendors are not engaged in protected speech. See id. at 285 (distinguishing between "expressive merchandise" and "[m]ere commercial goods").
In reaching its conclusion that plaintiffs' graffiti clothing is "at least as likely to be understood by some viewers as a Jackson Pollack painting" and just "as expressive as [the works of] any sidewalk calligrapher," id. at 291, the District Court explicitly took into consideration five factors: (1) whether the items were "individual[ly] creat[ed] . . . by the particular artist"; (2) "the artist's primary motivation for producing . . . the item"; (3) "the vendor's bona fides as an artist;" (4) "whether the vendor is personally attempting to convey his or her own message"; and (5) "whether the item appears to contain any elements of expression or communication that objectively could be so understood," id. at 292. The District Court explained that "[n]o one factor . . . control[led] the outcome," stressing instead that "the criteria fit together to form a matrix." Id.
We commend the District Court for seeking, in the difficult circumstances created by our open-ended ruling in Bery, to formulate organizing principles for determining when the sale of goods that are not presumptively expressive- i.e., items other than paintings, photographs, prints, and sculptures — should nonetheless be protected under the First Amendment, but we take this opportunity to modify its proposed multi-pronged test to render it consistent with accepted First Amendment principles.
The District Court correctly surmised that while "myriad factors will guide any inquiry into whether a vendor's wares are sufficiently expressive to merit First Amendment protection," this inquiry is "best . . . accomplished by examining [the items] in the light of objective considerations." Id. at 292. The District Court incorporated these "objective considerations" into its final and most important factor — namely, whether an item "appears to contain any elements of expression or communication that objectively could be so understood." Id. While, for the reasons stated below, we cannot embrace the precise wording of the District Court's final factor — which inquires whether "any elements of expression or communication" are present — we nonetheless agree with the District Court that the most reliable means of determining whether a vendor is primarily engaged in an act of self-expression is not to consult the vendor himself (who will, in most instances, have a strong incentive to emphasize his artistic motivations), but rather to examine the expressive content of the materials being sold.
Once a court has determined that an item possesses expressive elements, it should then consider whether that item also has a common non-expressive purpose or utility. Because merchandise that clearly has a alternative, non-expressive purpose — such as the recreational, apparel, and transportation goods mentioned above — is more likely to possess only marginally expressive content or to have been minimally embellished for the purpose of avoiding regulation, courts should exercise greater skepticism in designating such items as "expressive merchandise." The fact that an object serves some utilitarian purpose does not, however, automatically render it non-expressive; rather, upon a finding that the item in question possesses some common non-expressive purpose, a court should then determine whether that non-expressive purpose is dominant or not. Where an object's dominant purpose is expressive, the vendor of such an object has a stronger claim to protection under the First Amendment; conversely, where an object has a dominant non-expressive purpose, it will be classified as a "mere commercial good," the sale of which likely falls outside the scope of the First Amendment. Id. at 285.
For instance, in the landmark commercial speech case of Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262 (1942), (overruled on other grounds by several cases in the 1970s) the Supreme Court had no difficulty in applying a New York City regulation prohibiting distribution of handbill advertisements against a plaintiff who, in an effort to circumvent the regulation, had affixed a protest message to the other side of his handbills which advertised paid admission to his Navy submarine.
We expect that courts will likewise be able to identify cases where expressive elements have merely been affixed to items with a dominant non-expressive purpose for the purpose of evading regulation.
Here, plaintiffs' testimony concerning their motivations accord with our conclusions drawn from the objective characteristics of the merchandise. We do not suggest, however, that if plaintiffs relied solely on their own testimony concerning whether they were engaged in protected speech, such evidence would have been sufficient to trigger First Amendment review where the objective evidence in the record suggested a contrary conclusion. In fact, as we noted earlier, an objective assessment of the characteristics of the merchandise itself will generally be the most reliable evidence of whether an individual merchant is engaged in protected speech.
The District Court's third factor could easily be used to deprive First Amendment protection to artwork otherwise considered indisputably expressive. For example, a painting sold on a sidewalk of New York City that was painted by the proverbial "amateur" who lacked any sort of recognizable "bona fides," would fare less well under the District Court's "myriad factors" test than would the identical artwork of a more "credentialed" artist.
We note that plaintiffs' own testimony concerning their motivation for producing and selling their graffiti items confirms our prior conclusion that they are primarily engaged in acts of self-expression. For example, Santos stated that his "work is an expression of the particular idea represented on the work, as well as [his] own upbringing and style as an artist, identifiable as [his] own by the style and techniques used as well as by his signature." Decl. of Kevin Santos ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Santos added that his "artwork is both an important means of personal expression and [his] primary source of income." Id. ¶ 21. Along similar lines, Mastrovincenzo stated that his "overarching ambition is to convey a message in a language that people can understand and relate to, but that has aesthetic qualities that seem to `flow.'" Decl. of Christopher Mastrovincenzo ¶ 8 (emphasis added). He added that "he began to display and sell [his] hand-painted hats . . . as a means of artistic expression" even though they also represent his "primary form of income." Id. ¶ 11.
At the heart of our First Amendment jurisprudence lies the concern "that if the government were able `to impose content-based burdens on speech,' it could `effectively drive certain ideas or view-points from the marketplace.'" Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F.3d 133, 148 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Simon Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116, 112 S.Ct. 501, 116 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991)). As a safeguard against government censorship, we consider "regulations of speech based on its content [to be] presumptively invalid," id. at 149 (internal quotation marks omitted), upholding such regulations only if they withstand strict scrutiny. On the other hand, we apply "intermediate scrutiny" to
Under the strict-scrutiny test (which we do not apply in the instant case) "a content-based restriction may be upheld if the restriction serves a compelling governmental interest, is necessary to serve the asserted [compelling] interest, is precisely tailored to serve that interest, and is the least restrictive means readily available for that purpose." Hobbs, 397 F.3d at 149 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original).
regulations of expressive activity that are not based on content. Content-neutral regulations may limit the time, place, or manner of expression — whether oral, written, or symbolized by conduct — even in a public forum, so long as the restrictions are reasonable, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
In this "intermediate scrutiny" context, by "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest," id., we do not mean to imply that a regulation must be "`the least restrictive or least intrusive means of [achieving the stated governmental interest],'" id. (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)). Rather, "[t]he narrow tailoring requirement is satisfied so long as the . . . [content-neutral] regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation." Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). A content-neutral "time, place or manner" restriction will be considered narrowly tailored unless "a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals." Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746.
Whatever rationale the District Court may have used in reaching its conclusion that § 20-453 is "[a]pplied overbroadly," we disagree with its conclusion. We begin with the observation that New York City's licensing requirement is clearly a content-neutral speech restriction because it "serves purposes unrelated to the content of [the regulated] expression," Hobbs, 397 F.3d at 150 (internal quotation marks omitted), namely: (1) keeping the public streets free of congestion for the convenience and safety of its citizens, (2) maintaining the "tax base and economic viability of the City," and (3) preventing the sale of "stolen, defective or counterfeit merchandises," see Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 283 (quoting New York City Local Law 40/1988 § 1). While § 20-453 undoubtedly has "incidental" or "harmful secondary effects" on plaintiffs, these do not render the regulation content-based because it may still be "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." Hobbs, 397 F.3d at 149 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Bery, we considered § 20-453 a "time, place or manner" restriction, but in dicta expressed some doubt as to whether the licensing requirement, as then formulated, was content-neutral given the City's application of the requirement to vendors of visual art but not to vendors of written materials. Bery, 97 F.3d at 696 ("It is not clear that this ordinance is content-neutral [because] it distinguishes between written and visual expression. . . ."). We now resolve that ambiguity and hold that § 20-453, in its current form, is a content-neutral regulation that triggers intermediate scrutiny.
Our narrow-tailoring inquiry requires us "to apply principles of First Amendment jurisprudence to the specific facts of this case," and therefore we treat this issue as a mixed question of law and fact that we may resolve on appeal. Bay Area Peace Navy v. United States, 914 F.2d 1224, 1227 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1990). Because the record provides sufficient information to make an informed legal determination, we conclude that a remand to the District Court on the question of narrow-tailoring would be unnecessary, and indeed, would only prolong this litigation by promoting further appeals to this Court on the question of narrow-tailoring in the future.
Finally, § 20-453 leaves open "ample alternative channels" of communication. The requirement that "ample alternative channels" exist does not imply that alternative channels must be perfect substitutes for those channels denied to plaintiffs by the regulation at hand; indeed, were we to interpret the requirement in this way, no alternative channels could ever be deemed "ample." See Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 293 (6th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he requirement that ample alternative channels be left available does not mean that there must be a channel where [plaintiffs] can express themselves in precisely the same manner as before the regulation."); see also Heffron v. Int'l Soc'y For Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 647, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981) ("[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places and in any manner that may be desired."); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 405, 73 S.Ct. 760, 97 L.Ed. 1105 (1953) ("The principles of the First Amendment are not to be treated as a promise that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may gather around him at any public place and at any time a group for discussion or instruction.").
Upon discovering that he could not directly sell items to the public without a license, Santos "arranged for licensed vendors to sell his completed works on commission." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 284.
In addition to these options, the record reveals that plaintiffs have numerous alternative channels through which to share their art with the public. While Mastrovincenzo stated that his inability to obtain a license for street-side sale of his graffiti clothing prevents him from "selling [his] artwork as often as [he] would like to and in the more desirable locations," id. ¶ 25, he nonetheless acknowledged that he possesses opportunities to "display and sell [his] work at galleries, clubs and trade shows," in "freelance jobs for both individual and corporate clients," as well as on "themed murals." Decl. of Christopher Mastrovincenzo ¶ 17. In the past, Mastrovincenzo has also been commissioned to paint business cards, storefronts, and commercial signs. Id. ¶ 5.
Likewise, Kevin Santos has already taken advantage of opportunities to display his work in "a number of different venues." Decl of Kevin Santos ¶ 8. These include (1) art "show[s] and exhibition[s]" some of which allow his work to remain on "permanent display," (2) "a number of galleries in New York City," (3) documentary films, and (4) displays at the New York Historical Society. Decl. of Kevin Santos ¶¶ 8-11.
In addition, we take judicial notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), of the obvious fact that the Internet may provide an alternative outlet for the sale of plaintiffs' merchandise.
We are not bound here by our conclusion in Bery that "[t]he license requirement as it relates to [the Bery plaintiffs], which effectively bars them from displaying or selling their art on the streets, is too sweeping to pass constitutional muster." Bery, 97 F.3d at 697 (emphasis added). As described above, whether a regulation is narrowly tailored can only be determined by considering the scope of its application relative to the government objectives being pursued, taking context into account. See Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1140 n. 52 (9th Cir. 2005) (endorsing a "pragmatic application of the ample alternatives test" that focuses on the particular context in which speech restrictions are applied). Therefore, the Bery Court's conclusion as to whether § 20-453 was narrowly tailored in its application to vendors of paintings, photographs, prints, and sculptures does not dictate our conclusion as to whether § 20-453 is narrowly tailored in its application to the differently-situated plaintiffs in this case, who are vendors of regular merchandise with sufficient expressive content to qualify for First Amendment protection. We have never addressed that question, and we consider it here as a matter of first impression.
The types of wares at issue here, whose dominant purpose is not clearly expressive, present line-drawing questions markedly distinct from the more-easily-classified "paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture" at issue in Bery, and we are therefore persuaded that the "least restrictive or least intrusive means of [achieving the stated governmental interest]," id. (internal quotation marks omitted), in this context is likely to be more burdensome than it would be with respect to the traditional art forms at issue in Bery. For this reason, and in light of information in the record concerning alternative avenues of communication available to these specific plaintiffs, we believe that notwithstanding Bery, § 20-453 is sufficiently narrowly tailored to satisfy intermediate scrutiny here.
The District Court concluded, as an adequate and independent basis for its holding, that plaintiffs would also likely succeed on their Bery injunction claim. In short, the District Court held that plaintiffs' hats, jackets, and other clothing are "paintings" within the meaning of the Bery injunction, which was the product of a settlement in which the City of New York agreed not to enforce its licensing requirement against "any person who hawks, peddles, sells, leases or offers to sell or lease, at retail, any paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture . . . in a public space," Permanent Injunction on Consent dated Oct. 21, 1997, Bery v. City of New York, No. 94 Civ. 4253(MGC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1997) (emphasis added). According to the District Court, plaintiffs' items are properly considered "paintings" because "[t]he original application of pigment to an article of clothing done for expressive reasons by an artist is . . . a painting," and "[a] painting does not lose its definition as painting . . . when it appears on something other than a framed canvas." Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 293.
Our colleague writing separately sets forth two similarly broad definitions of "painting," the first of which encompasses any "representation on a surface executed in paint or colours" while the second includes any "work produced" through "[t]he process, art, or occupation of coating surfaces with paint." Post, at [107] (quoting the Oxford English Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). While our colleague concedes that "the word `painting' hardly applies to `any item to which pigment has been applied,'" post at [107] (quoting Majority Op. at [103]), the definitions upon which he relies admit of no clear limiting principle. Consequently, our colleague's interpretation of the Bery injunction appears either to encompass any "surface" to which paint has been applied or to leave unclear the distinction between paintings and non-paintings. Because we cannot agree that the parties intended to adopt such an expansive or imprecise definition in the text of the injunction, we decline to interpret the term in such a broad, open-ended manner.
We reject the position of plaintiffs, see Appellees' Br. at 16-17, that we ought to interpret the use of "any" to mean "any items to which paint is applied." Rather, we interpret the term "any" to mean that there can be no discretionary distinctions among those items that otherwise fall within the Bery injunction's definition of "painting." For example, the Bery injunction applies to poorly executed paintings, offensive paintings, large and small paintings. But stipulating that there can be no distinctions drawn within an identified group does not imply an expansion of the outer boundaries of that group.
For instance, plaintiffs' interpretation, taken to its logical extent, would support the unlicensed sale of new BMW "art cars" or "rolling canvases" painted by commissioned artists, see Decl. of Henry Chalfant ¶ 20 [A 178], or even ordinary vehicles with factory paint jobs. We cannot in good faith glean this sort of an outcome from the Bery injunction.
Assuming arguendo that the Bery plaintiffs actually intended "paintings" to include all objects to which paint has been applied, they did not include any language in the Bery injunction itself specifying that this was their understanding. Because we hold that the plain meaning, normal use, structure, and circumstances surrounding the creation of the Bery injunction suggest that "paintings" was understood to have a narrower meaning, we are persuaded that the Bery plaintiffs bore the burden of providing such a "clarification" if indeed they desired a broader scope to the injunction.
Robert Bery is described in the Complaint has having sold "mixed media paintings," see Bery Compl. ¶ 39, which are paintings that use "two or more media in a single work of art, for example, the combining of watercolor and gouache." Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms and Techniques (2d ed. 1969). While the term "mixed media paintings" does not explicitly specify a traditional canvas, it clearly does not refer to mere painted goods.
Plaintiffs have also raised claims under Article 1 of the New York State Constitution. Due to the nature of its decision, the District Court did not reach these arguments. Mastrovincenzo, 313 F.Supp.2d at 294. Accordingly, these claims are not properly before us on appeal, and we decline to address them here.
Accordingly, we vacate the order of the District Court preliminarily enjoining defendants from enforcing New York City Municipal Code § 20-453 against plaintiffs. The cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Although our opinion in Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 696 (2d Cir. 1996), used the phrase "expressive merchandise," I agree with the panel opinion that some form of "dominant expressive purpose" test more accurately captures the relevant inquiry. See ante, 435 F.3d at 85 n. 4; 87 n. 6. A piece of yellow ribbon may arguably not constitute "expressive merchandise" yet still have a dominantly expressive purpose if used by its creator or distributor to express his or her concern for American service men and women. Conversely, it seems to me that a vendor's sale by the score of "expressive merchandise," such as cast-iron Statues of Liberty or "I N.Y." T-shirts (not to say a buyer's purchase, wearing, or display of the item for expressive purposes), may not warrant full First Amendment protection if their dissemination does not have a dominant expressive purpose.
I disagree not with the majority's First Amendment analysis, then, but only with (1) its conclusions regarding the impact of the Bery Injunction, see Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 696 (2d Cir. 1996); Permanent Injunction on Consent, dated October 21, 1997, Bery v. City of New York, No. 94 Civ. 4253 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 1997) (the " Bery Injunction"), and (2) its conclusion that we may determine in the first instance that the ordinance is a reasonable time, place or manner restriction in this context.
Under the Bery Injunction, the Bery defendants, including the City, the Department of Consumer Affairs, and the Police Department, are "permanently enjoined from enforcing Administrative Code § 20-453 [the general vendor licensing requirement] against any person who hawks, peddles, sells, leases or offers to sell or lease, at retail, any paintings, photographs, prints and/or sculpture, either exclusively or in conjunction with newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets, or other similar written matter, in a public space." Bery Injunction, at 2. The preliminary question for us is whether, under those terms, the plaintiffs must be allowed to sell their works on city sidewalks and streets without a license. Unlike the majority, I think the answer is in the affirmative.
One of the definitions given by Webster's Third New International Dictionary for the verb "paint" is "to make or produce (as a picture, sketch, design) in lines and colors on a surface (as a canvas or wall) by brushing on or similarly applying pigments," thus referring to "canvas" as an example of a surface on which a painting may be executed. Id., available at http://mwu.eb.com (last visited Dec. 13, 2005).
Indeed, there are of course famous paintings on ceilings and walls of buildings that are indisputably great works of "art" I do not think, and I doubt the majority's "dominant expressive purpose" test (with which I am in agreement) requires, that the fact that these works were painted on parts of buildings that also serve the utilitarian purposes of holding up a roof or keeping out the elements would disqualify them as "paintings" under the Bery Injunction (assuming for these purposes that anything remotely resembling Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" or Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel paintings are capable of being sold from push-carts on the streets of New York). In other words, I do not see why an original painting on a blank hat, if painted with a dominant expressive purpose, is any less a "painting" for the purposes of the Bery Injunction than are the endless, mass-produced "prints," the dissemination of which is now exempt from the City's licensing requirement.
To be sure, experts might, in some circumstances, refer to such a painting as a "fresco." But the Oxford English Dictionary tells us that a fresco is " [a] kind of painting executed in water-colour on a wall, ceiling, etc. of which the mortar or plaster is not quite dry, so that the colours sink in and become more durable. Orig. in phrase (to paint) in fresco." Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989), available at http://dictionary.oed.com (last visited Dec. 13, 2005) (first emphasis added; other emphasis in original).
Interestingly, perhaps, it would appear that Robert Bery, the lead plaintiff in the case, creates multimedia works that combine painting, photography, video, and computer graphics — including early works involving oil and silver emulsion on wood and more recent works using chromium with acrylic on transparencies, see http://www.beryarts.com (last visited Dec. 13, 2005). I would think it likely that such works would qualify as "paintings" under the Bery Injunction even though they are not representations on canvas or paper. Maybe the City defendants hoped that the terms of the Injunction would be understood narrowly, but there is no reason to think that the artists who effectively won the case would have had in mind a narrow conception of "painting" when they entered into it.
The majority criticizes the district court for having "truncated its analysis, resting its holding almost exclusively on its finding that plaintiffs' items qualify as protected speech and paying less attention to the equally important question of whether § 20-453 is a valid `time, place or manner' restriction." Ante, 435 F.3d at 98. Yet I see nearly nothing in the record, and too little in the majority opinion, to convince me that the ordinance at issue here, as applied to these plaintiffs, is "reasonable" as a matter of law. Importantly, for example, I do not think we know enough to decide whether the ordinance leaves the plaintiffs with "ample alternative channels" of communication. It seems to me speculative to conclude on the basis of what we have before us that licensing vendors to sell works, or using homes, galleries, museums, or the Internet to disseminate plaintiffs' works, constitutes the "ample alternative channels" that are required.
We decided in Bery, 97 F.3d at 697-98, that as a matter of law, this same ordinance was unreasonable as applied to the sale of the artworks by the plaintiffs there. In the course of reaching that conclusion, we stated that "[t]he City ha[d] . . . failed to meet the requirement of demonstrating alternative channels for [the artists'] expression." Id. at 698. I do not see how, in the face of that conclusion, we can decide, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs have sufficient alternative channels for disseminating their work to render the same ordinance reasonable here.
According to the Bery court:
[T]o tell [the artists] that they are free to sell their work in galleries is no remedy for them. They might not be at a point in their careers in which they are interested in reaching the public that attends exhibits at art galleries — if, indeed, they could get their works accepted for showing. Appellants are interested in attracting and communicating with the man or woman on the street who may never have been to a gallery and indeed who might never have thought before of possessing a piece of art until induced to do so on seeing appellants' works. The sidewalks of the City must be available for appellants to reach their public audience.
Bery, 97 F.3d at 698.
I understand that were the case to be returned to the district court for it to address these issues, we would likely be required to review the district court's decision de novo. See Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1996). That does not mean that we should decide these issues without prior input from the district court. See Beckford v. Portuondo, 234 F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (observing that even though we review a grant of summary judgment de novo, "that does not mean that it is our function to decide motions for summary judgment in the first instance. We are dependent on the district court to identify and sort out the issues on such motions, to examine and analyze them, and to apply the law to the facts accepted by the court for purposes of the motion. We are entitled to the benefit of the district court's judgment, which is always helpful and usually persuasive.").
If the case were being remanded to the district court on the "reasonableness" issue, perhaps it would be the better course also to ask the district court to determine in the first instance whether the dissemination of the plaintiffs works is for a dominant expressive purpose. Under the circumstances, though, the issue is academic.