Opinion ID: 76557
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 Martha Burk, the National Council of Women's Organizations, and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (referred to collectively as Burk) appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for preliminary injunction in a challenge to the constitutionality of Augusta-Richmond County's permitting requirement for public demonstrations in groups of five or more people. The appeal presents two questions: (1) the facial constitutionality of requiring groups of five or more persons to obtain a permit before publicly engaging in political expression in a public forum; and (2) whether requiring permit applicants to submit an indemnification agreement in a form satisfactory to the county attorney grants the attorney unconstitutional discretion over permitting decisions. We find the Ordinance unconstitutional in each respect and reverse.
2 Section 3-4-11 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code (the Ordinance), enacted in anticipation of protests during the then-forthcoming Masters Golf Tournament held annually at the Augusta National Golf Club, states: There shall be no public demonstration or protest, (hereinafter collectively referred to as event) consisting of five (5) or more persons on any sidewalk, street, public right-of-way or other public property within Augusta unless a permit for same has been issued for such event by the Sheriff of Richmond County. 3 Augusta-Richmond County Code § 3-4-11. The Code defines Protest/Demonstration as Any expression of support for, or protest of, any person, issue, political or other cause or action which is manifested by the physical presence of persons, or the display of signs, posters, banners, and the like. § 3-4-1(e). Violating the Ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or 60 days imprisonment. §§ 3-4-13; 1-6-1. 4 In addition to information such as the name and address of the applicant and a description of the planned event, see §§ 3-4-11(a)(1)-(2), a permit applicant must furnish an indemnification and hold-harmless agreement suitable to the county attorney, § 3-4-11(a)(3). The County Sheriff may deny an application for any of several reasons. See § 3-4-11(b)(3).
5 Burk sued the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government, the Augusta-Richmond County Commission, the Mayor of Augusta, and the Richmond County Sheriff (collectively, the County) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin enforcement of the Ordinance, claiming it violated her First Amendment right to free speech. The district court converted Burk's motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and denied it, finding that Burk failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits. Burk appeals that determination and asks this Court to uphold her facial challenge to the Ordinance. 1 Because this appeal presents pure questions of law and our disposition dictates the outcome of the underlying claim, we accept the invitation. See, e.g., Callaway v. Block, 763 F.2d 1283, 1287 & n. 6 (11th Cir.1985). We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo. This That & the Other Gift & Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 285 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir.2002).