Opinion ID: 24815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Amendment Forum Analysis

Text: 43 For First Amendment purposes, [t]he existence of a right of access to public property and the standard by which limitations upon such a right must be evaluated differ depending on the character of the property at issue. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 44 (1983). Thus, our determination of the character of the forum in which expression was regulated shapes our determination whether a clearly established right existed and our ultimate conclusion whether a constitutional violation occurred. 44 The Supreme Court has adopted a tripartite forum-based framework to analyze First Amendment issues involving governmentally owned property. [T]he Court [has] identified three types of forums: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by governmental designation, and the nonpublic forum. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). 45 Traditional public forums are places that 'by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly or debate.' Estiverne v. La. State Bar Ass'n, 863 F.2d 371, 376 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802). This type of forum includes streets 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 thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' Perry, 460 U.S. at 45 (quoting Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)). The state's efforts to exclude speakers from such traditional public forums are subject to rigorous first amendment scrutiny. Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 376. In these areas, the state regulation must withstand strict scrutiny, i.e., show that a content-based prohibition serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored. See Perry, 460 U.S. at 45. 9 46 In addition to traditional public forums, a public forum may be created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802 (reasoning that a designated public forum exists when the government intentionally open[s] a nontraditional public forum for public discourse); see also Perry, 460 U.S. at 45. The state's power to restrict speakers' access to this category of public forum is subject to the same first amendment constraints that apply to traditional public forums. Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 376; see also Perry, 460 U.S. at 45 (The Constitution forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place.). 47 Despite the acceptance of a middle category between traditional and nonpublic forums, there is some confusion over the terminology used to describe this category. Two terms -- designated public forum and limited public forum -- have been utilized by the Supreme Court, 10 our sister circuits, 11 and this court, 12 yet there has not been agreement on their meaning. Specifically, it has not been clear whether the terms could be used interchangeably to describe the middle tier of forum, or in fact described different types of forums subject to different levels of First Amendment scrutiny. The Supreme Court has recently used the term limited public forum to describe forums opened for public expression of particular kinds or by particular groups. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, -- U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 2100 (2001) (treating school facilities opened by a school district for a wide, but not unlimited, range of public expressive activities as a limited public forum, based on agreement by the parties); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829, 115 S.Ct at 2516-17 (describing campus facilities opened to various student groups as a limited forum). When a public body establishes a limited public forum of this sort, that body may restrict the expression that takes place within the forum so long as the restriction (1) does not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint and (2) is reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. Milford Central, 121 S.Ct. at 2100. Because the level of scrutiny applied to government regulation of speech in a limited public forum differs from that applied to regulation of speech in a designated public forum, it now seems clear that the two terms are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably. 48 Though the Supreme Court now clearly distinguishes designated public forums subject to strict scrutiny from limited public forums that are not, the line separating the two categories remains undefined. In distinguishing between the two types of forums, our precedent directs us to focus on two factors: (1) the government's intent with respect to the forum, and (2) the nature of the [forum] and its compatibility with the speech at issue. Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 378. Government intent with regard to the forum is the critical starting point for determining whether regulation of speech in a particular forum should be subject to strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that public entities have broad discretion to control access to and use of property or events that are not traditional public forums. Ark. Educ. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 677 (1998) (Designated public fora, . . . are created by purposeful governmental action.); Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802, 105 S.Ct. at 3449. The government does not automatically designate a public forum by permitting limited discourse or selective access. Ark. Educ. Television, 523 U.S. at 677. The government creates a designated public forum only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 805, 105 S.Ct. at 3449; see also Hays County Guardian v. Supple, 969 F.2d 111, 116 (5th Cir. 1992) (looking to whether the government was motivated by 'an affirmative desire,' or 'express policy' of allowing public discourse on the property in question.). If, 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. Ark. Educ. Television, 523 U.S. at 681. That result would conflict with the broad First Amendment policy of encouraging public discourse on issues of community interest. Id. However, once the government has designated a particular forum as appropriate for certain types of speech or for speech on particular topics, speech for which the forum is designated is afforded protection identical to the protection provided to speakers in a traditional public forum. Supple, 969 F.2d at 116; Ark. Educ. Television, 523 U.S. at 677 (If the government excludes a speaker who falls within the class to which a designated public forum is made generally available, its action is subject to strict scrutiny (citations omitted)). 49 Public property that is not by tradition or designation open for public communication is governed by nonpublic forum standards. See Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 376 ([A] forum may be considered nonpublic where there is clear evidence that the state did not intend to create a public forum or where the nature of the property at issue is inconsistent with the expressive activity, indicating that the government did not intend to create a public forum.). A nonpublic forum, however, is not a private forum, and because it is a government-sponsored medium of communication, it is still subject to First Amendment constraints. See Estiverne, 863 F.2d at 378 n.9. As with limited public forums, [t]he government can restrict access to a nonpublic forum 'as long as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view.' Ark. Educ. Television, 523 U.S. at 677-78 (quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800). 50