Opinion ID: 146453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs' First Amendment Vagueness Challenge

Text: The plaintiffs' claim could conceivably have been characterized as a First Amendment challenge. They chose not to do so in the complaint, however. There it is pleaded as a pure Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The complaint makes no mention of, or allusion to, the First Amendment or any conduct that would implicate the First Amendment. At no point do the plaintiffs allege an intent [to use the badges] to convey a particularized message. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the plaintiffs have been adamant throughout the litigation that the badges at issue were secured on their persons and that the plaintiffs engaged in no expressive conduct. See, e.g., Appellants' Br. at 5 (None of the Plaintiffs in any way attempted to display these badges. . . .). Similarly, the plaintiffs chose not to invoke the First Amendment at oral argument before the district court. The district court's opinion therefore understandably did not engage in any First Amendment analysis. Any First Amendment claim was therefore waived. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.); N.Y. City Envtl. Justice Alliance v. Giuliani, 214 F.3d 65, 67 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000) (Because plaintiffs' purported § 1983 claim was neither raised in the complaint nor passed upon by the district court, we decline to review it on this appeal.). [9]