Opinion ID: 1345037
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Should the Injunction Be Expanded?

Text: The City has not cross-appealed the district court's injunction, but IAC argues that the injunction does not go far enough. In August 2004, the Mayor approved a United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) protest against the Republican National Convention, which proceeded on a stretch of Fifth Avenue. The UPJ protest did not  and the City admits as much  meet the requirements of the Special Permit Provision. The City argued that the UPJ permit fit the spirit and intent of the Special Permits Provision. The district court found that the City  in permitting the UPJ march and not the IAC march  made a content-based distinction. Thus, the district court concluded that the City's discretion to determine which parades satisfy the Special Permits Provision was effectively unconstrained. Int'l Action Ctr., 522 F. Supp. 2d at 692. The district court enjoined the City from granting permits for new parades on Fifth Avenue in violation of the Fifth Avenue Rule, unless the requested use fits squarely within the categories enumerated in the regulation. On appeal, IAC argues that the injunction should be broadened to apply to parades that the City authorizes without a permit. We conclude that an enlargement of the injunction is not necessary. The City does not have the discretion to authorize a parade without a permit in any case. The restrictions are clear: marches may not proceed without a permit; new parades are not allowed on Fifth Avenue; exceptions to the Fifth Avenue Rule must meet the Special Permit Provision; and, the City is enjoined from granting permits to marches that do not definitively meet the requirements of the Special Permit Provision. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's injunction.