Court Opinion

ID: 9497431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:51:21.688815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:11.717837
License: Public Domain

COOK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that CSRAB’s regulations are vague, overbroad or not narrowly tailored, I respectfully dissent.
First, CSRAB’s permitting scheme is not a “ban.” It does not prohibit speech; it merely regulates the time, place, and manner of speaking to accommodate the government’s interest in maintaining the Capitol grounds. Such regulations are valid “provided the restrictions [of protected speech] are ‘justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’ ” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984)). CSRAB’s regulations satisfy all three criteria.
That CSRAB’s regulations are content-neutral and leave available ample alternative channels of communication is not in dispute. And contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the regulations are narrowly tailored because they “promote[] a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746. In Thomas v. Chicago Park District, the Supreme Court upheld a permit system that, like the one here, enabled the government “to coordinate multiple uses of limited space, to assure preservation of the *707park facilities, to prevent uses that are dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible under the Park District’s rules, and to assure financial accountability for damage, caused by the event.” 534 U.S. 316, 322, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002).
Although the permit scheme in Thomas could be considered more narrowly .tailored than CSRAB’s policy, the fact that this court can imagine regulations that would be more closely tailored to achieving CSRAB’s goals does not mean that CSRAB’s . scheme is unconstitutional — . “[the Supreme Court’s] cases quite clearly hold that restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech are not invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome on speech.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 797, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (internal quotation marks omitted). CSRAB’s interests in preserving the Capitol grounds and maintaining order and safety are substantial, and they would be achieved less effectively if individual speakers were not required to comply with the permitting regulations.
Additionally, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the phrase “for broad public purpose” is so vague as to render the regulations facially unconstitutional. The regulations applied to Parks’s conduct because he was preaching and distributing leaflets to the public. If someone were “wearing an expressive T-shirt or carrying an expressive balloon” and also standing on the Capitol grounds in an effort to communicate with the public, then her conduct would likewise require a permit. .The majority’s statement that it is affirming the district court’s injunction only with respect to individuals, but not with respect to individuals “speaking as part of ... [an] organized effort to create a crowd,” implicitly recognizes that valid, non-vague regulations can draw distinctions based on speakers’ different purposes. The majority draws a somewhat different distinction than CSRAB has' drawn — the majority’s opinion requires two or three individuals organized for the purpose of creating a crowd, but' not two or three individuals who just happen to show up on the Capitol Square at the same time, to obtain permits — but under both the majority’s opinion -and CSRAB’s regulations, whether a speaker must obtain a permit depends upon the speaker’s purpose.
I also disagree that the regulations are overbroad. The regulations are not over-broad because they do not prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, much less the “substantial amount” of protected speech that would justify a finding of facial invalidity. See Kreimer v. Bureau of Police, 958 F.2d 1242, 1265 (3d Cir.1992) (“[T]he doctrine of overbreadth is appropriately applied in a facial challenge only where ‘the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail’ ” (quoting Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982))); accord Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989); Bd. of Airport Comm’rs of City of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987).
Rather than proscribing speech, the regulations establish a permitting scheme that applies only to. speakers using Capitol Square for “activities of a broad public purpose.” Ironically, the majority reads this phrase as prohibiting virtually all speech — equating it with the Los Angeles International Airport’s “First Amendment Free Zone” — but the phrase instead constrains the reach of the permitting scheme. • The majority’s hypothetical T-shirt wearers or balloon carriers might fall *708within the ambit of the permitting scheme, but only if the purpose of their activity on Capitol Square were broadly public. And nothing in the record suggests that the regulations would apply to “two friends debating which candidate should be elected President in November while walking across the Capitol grounds,” because these speakers would be engaged in a private conversation rather than an activity of broad public purpose. For the same reason, the majority’s concerns about stifling spontaneous speech are unfounded. As for the rancher who might want to stop and “debate” with the members of POET, nothing in the First Amendment grants a would-be heckler the right to disrupt the message of other speakers.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.