Opinion ID: 201356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facial Validity of Guidelines: Vagueness and Vesting of Discretion

Text: 128 Change the Climate argues that the guidelines must fail, in any event, because they are not sufficiently clear and objective. Change the Climate and Ridley also challenge the regulatory scheme on the ground that it is too vague and vests too much discretion in MBTA officials. In its Ridley opinion, the district court did not address the claim. In Change the Climate, however, the district court found that the guideline prohibiting demeaning or disparaging material was somewhat vague on its face and still leaves too much room for arbitrary decisions. 129 In any event, the record is adequate to address this kind of facial challenge to the guidelines. Since, as well, the parties have thoroughly briefed this issue, there are no facts in dispute, and the issue raises important questions regarding the application of the First Amendment to the MBTA, we will address this challenge. See, e.g., In re Keeper of Records, 348 F.3d 16, 26 (1st Cir.2003) (appellate consideration of an issue raised but not ruled upon by the court below is proper where [t]he parties have briefed [an] issue, the facts pertaining to it are essentially uncontradicted, and an adjudication will expedite matters.); AIDS Action Comm. of Massachusetts v. MBTA, 42 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1994) ([S]o long as the record is adequately developed, we will not hesitate to resolve a mixed fact/law issue involving a core First Amendment concern even though the district court did not address it in the first instance.). 130 The vagueness inquiry, to the extent it applies here at all, incorporates two basic concerns: 1) concerns about fair notice, and about the related danger of chilling expression, and 2) concerns about excessive discretion being invested in administering and enforcing officials. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). The mere fact that a regulation requires interpretation does not make it vague. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 169 n. 64, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003); Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 49-50, 96 S.Ct. 243, 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975). 131 First Amendment analysis is particularly prone to words and phrases being taken out of context. Concerns about vagueness and about excessive discretion arise most strongly in other contexts. The void-for-vagueness argument classically arises where the government imposes criminal sanctions for conduct or speech. See United States v. Lachman, 387 F.3d 42, 56-59 (1st Cir.2004). And the concern over subjective decision making has most effect in government licensing schemes. Neither is the situation here. 132 Here, there is no serious concern about either notice or chilling effects, where there are no consequences for submitting a non-conforming advertisement and having it rejected. See Nat'l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 588-89, 118 S.Ct. 2168, 141 L.Ed.2d 500 (1998) (no serious concern that people will steer too far clear and be chilled in the context of a regulation that is not criminal or quasi-criminal and merely establishes criteria for grants); Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 983 (9th Cir.1998) (relaxing the vagueness standard in the context of a city transportation system's advertising policy because [t]his claim is unlike the usual vagueness challenge involving a fine or other sanction that has the potential to chill conduct.). 133 Thus the inquiry reduces to an investigation into whether the discretion given to MBTA administrators under the scheme is unconstitutionally excessive. The void-for-vagueness doctrine and the excessive delegation doctrine are technically analytically distinct, Griffin v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2002), but overlap on the facts here. Virtually all of the Supreme Court cases to determine excessive discretion challenges have dealt with traditional public fora. See Griffin, 288 F.3d at 1321-22. The danger of excessive discretion in this case is that it could lead to viewpoint-discriminatory decisions in practice even under a facially neutral regulation. We have already concluded there was no viewpoint discrimination in Ridley, and that the viewpoint discrimination in Change the Climate did not result from the face of those guidelines. 134 The cases that Change the Climate and Ridley cite all deal with licensing schemes regulating the exercise of speech in traditional public fora. The dissent similarly relies on cases and standards that are out of context because they deal with traditional public fora. See, e.g., Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130-33, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) (striking down permit scheme for demonstration on courthouse steps); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 150-51, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969) (striking down permit requirement for protest on city streets). In these situations, it is true, delegations of authority to grant licenses for speech may operate as prior restraints. As such, those delegations must meet the stringent standard of containing narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority. Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 150-51, 89 S.Ct. 935. The settings for those cases are unarguably public fora open to everybody and to all types of speech; the very limited obstructions permitted by the licensing requirement are allowed primarily so that the state can maintain basic order. 135 The regulatory scheme at issue here is not a licensing scheme, and the MBTA advertising program is neither a traditional nor a designated public forum. See, e.g., Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 725, 110 S.Ct. 3115 (government holds as proprietor, and not as licensor, when operating a non-public forum). Excessive discretion and vagueness inquiries under the First Amendment are not static inquiries, impervious to context. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 871-72, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) (the vagueness inquiry is most rigorous in a criminal context, where there is a high risk speech will be chilled); Finley, 524 U.S. at 581-83, 588-89, 118 S.Ct. 2168 (requirements that might be vague in other contexts, like a criminal statute, were not vague when used as criteria for a grant process that was subjective by nature); Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982)(The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates — as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement — depends in part on the nature of the enactment.). 136 Our view is that a grant of discretion to exercise judgment in a non-public forum must be upheld so long as it is reasonable in light of the characteristic nature and function of that forum. Griffin, 288 F.3d at 1323; see also Finley, 524 U.S. at 589-590, 118 S.Ct. 2168 (approving broad discretion to take into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public in NEA grant process, given the inherently subjective nature of these types of selection processes). [S]electivity and discretionary access are defining characteristics of non-public fora, which unlike public fora are not intended to be open to all speech. See Griffin, 288 F.3d at 1323. 137 The MBTA's regulatory guidelines, which in Ridley reject any advertisement that demeans or disparages an individual or group of individuals and which use prevailing community standards to determine whether advertisements fall afoul of this standard, are not unreasonably vague or overbroad, given the nature of the MBTA's advertising program and its chief purpose of raising revenue without losing ridership. Some kinds of advertisements that will be consistent with this purpose may be difficult to pinpoint with exact precision; some degree of interpretation, and some reliance on concepts like prevailing community standards, is inevitable. In Griffin, the court found that considerable discretion left in the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs was acceptable to ensure the preservation of the commemorative functions of national cemeteries; the MBTA is also entitled to some discretion in determining which advertisements are likely to alienate ridership and cost it revenue. These decisions also may defy objective description and ... vary with individual circumstances. Griffin, 288 F.3d at 1325. 138 In any event, for purposes of the acceptance or rejection of advertising, words like demean or disparage have reasonably clear meanings. We recognize that several courts have struck down, on vagueness grounds, school speech codes that incorporated somewhat similar terms. See Dambrot v. Central Mich. Univ., 55 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (6th Cir.1995); UWM Post, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 774 F.Supp. 1163, 1178-81 (E.D.Wis.1991); Doe v. Univ. of Mich., 721 F.Supp. 852, 866-67 (E.D.Mich.1989). But cf. UWM Post, 774 F.Supp. at 1179-80 (In the context of a university hate speech regulation, the word demean is not unduly vague, since it has a reasonably clear meaning: to debase in dignity or stature.). 14 These decisions come out of a very different context: vagueness concerns are more pressing when there are sanctions (such as expulsion) attached to violations of a challenged regulation. 139 Further, we acknowledge that two courts considered public transportation advertising policies that gave their systems discretion to reject controversial advertisements to be unconstitutional. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Reg'l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 358-60 (6th Cir.1998); Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 112 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1327-28 (N.D.Ga.2000). The cases are distinguishable. In both, a public forum was found. Further, a regulation asking whether something is controversial is a less precise inquiry, and has the potential to strike down many more advertisements, than a regulation asking whether advertisements demean[ ] or disparage[ ] someone.