Opinion ID: 161267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Facial Challenge to the Unattended Display Ban: Unbridled Discretion

Text: 62 Plaintiffs also challenge the unattended display ban on its face, claiming that the prohibition is a per se violation of the First Amendment in that it vests unbridled discretion in city officials. [I]n the area of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 97 (1972); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-53 (1969); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 407 (1953). As a preliminary matter, we note that the fact that Denver's policy is unwritten is not fatal, but merely a factor to be considered. Lebron, 69 F.3d at 658 (The fact that a policy is not committed to writing does not of itself constitute a First Amendment violation.). 63 In addition, the record indicates that the unattended display ban leaves very little room for official discretion -- if any. E.g., Aplt. App. at 97, 107 (testifying that there are no exceptions to the unattended display ban) (Mr. Hall). To counter this evidence, Ms. Wells and the FFRF note that in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting in April 1999, the mayor allowed signs, cards, stuffed animals, and other paraphe[r]nalia [that] were taped to the sidewalk and the fence below the steps by mourners to remain unattended for ten to fourteen days. Aplt. Br. at 15; see also Aplt. App. at 73. There is no other evidence that the City has permitted private, unattended displays at the City and County Building, and there is no evidence that the City has ever permitted such displays on the East Steps. Aplt. App. at 77, 93-94, 97, 107. 64 Even if we assume that the Columbine displays constitute evidence that the policy allows official discretion, we find that discretion is sufficiently bounded to survive constitutional scrutiny. The unbridled discretion doctrine requires that official discretion affecting First Amendment interests be bounded by limits that are made explicit by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice. City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 770 (citations omitted, emphasis added). In this case, Denver's well-established practice with respect to the unattended display ban appears to be one of uniform enforcement, with the sole exception of the Columbine displays. As discussed below, the events surrounding the Columbine displays were extraordinarily tragic and highly emotional. Neither City of Lakewood nor any other unbridled discretion case supports the proposition that a single, unique exception to a generally applicable and otherwise uniformly enforced policy is sufficient to render that policy constitutionally void. Accordingly, we must reject the plaintiffs' claim that the City's discretion is unfettered. 65