American Civil Liberties Union v. Mote
423 F.3d 438, 2005 WL 2181790 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public university campuses are generally considered limited public forums for unsponsored outsiders, meaning restrictions on their speech are permissible under the First Amendment if they are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the forum's educational purpose.
Facts:
- The University of Maryland, College Park, is the State's flagship public university campus, occupying over 1,200 acres and serving 34,000 students and approximately 12,000 faculty and staff members.
- C.D. Mote, Jr., as president of the University, approved and issued a regulation that restricted speech in outdoor areas of the campus.
- The University policy allows unsponsored persons or groups (outsiders) to use the Nyumburu Amphitheater for public speaking and designated sidewalks outside the Stamp Student Union for literature distribution.
- Outsiders wishing to use these designated spots must reserve space with the campus reservations office up to five days in advance, with reservations approved on a space-available basis and priority given to university community members.
- The policy prohibits unsponsored public speaking and distribution of literature by outsiders away from the Nyumburu Amphitheater and Stamp Student Union sidewalks.
- If an outsider is sponsored by a member of the campus community (student, faculty, or staff), they are granted the same access to facilities as their sponsor, allowing them to engage in these activities anywhere on campus.
- Michael Reeves, an outsider working for political candidate Lyndon LaRouche, sought to distribute leaflets on campus but was denied permission because all available spaces had been reserved.
- When Reeves attempted to distribute leaflets at a nearby location on campus, University police issued him a citation and ordered him to leave the College Park campus or be arrested for trespassing.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Civil Liberties Union Student Chapter - University of Maryland, College Park, Daniel M. Sinclair, Michael Reeves, and Matthew Fogg (Plaintiffs-Appellants) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, challenging the University's speech policy on First Amendment grounds.
- The district court dismissed all plaintiffs except Michael Reeves.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendant C.D. Mote, Jr. (President of the University of Maryland, College Park).
- Michael Reeves, as the remaining plaintiff, appealed the district court's denial of his summary judgment motion and the grant of summary judgment to Mote to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public university's policy restricting unsponsored public speech by non-students to specific, reservable locations, and requiring sponsorship for speech elsewhere on campus, violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Widener, Circuit Judge
No, a public university's policy restricting unsponsored public speech by non-students to specific, reservable locations, and requiring sponsorship for speech elsewhere on campus, does not violate the First Amendment. The court determined that the University of Maryland, College Park campus, particularly its outdoor areas for unsponsored outsiders, constitutes a "limited public forum." Unlike traditional public forums such as streets or parks, a university campus is primarily devoted to its educational mission, forming a "special type of enclave." While the University purposefully opened certain areas for public speech, this action created a limited, not a traditional, public forum, as evidenced by its historical use not being open to the public at large. For speech restrictions in a limited public forum involving outsiders (who are not considered "of a similar character" to the university community for the forum's core purpose), the "external standard" applies. This standard dictates that restrictions must be "viewpoint neutral" and "reasonable" in light of the forum's objective purpose. The court found the University's policy viewpoint neutral, noting that its regulations contain no content or viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. An isolated instance where the University allowed a specific protest (Westboro Baptist Church) outside the usual designated limits was deemed reasonable, as it furthered the University's academic interest in fostering discussion related to a campus-wide program, rather than reflecting viewpoint discrimination. Furthermore, the policy was deemed reasonable. It does not impose a total ban on outsider speech but rather constitutes a time, place, and manner restriction. It requires reservations for specific, high-traffic locations which offer a distinct advantage to the speaker, and allows broader access if an outsider obtains sponsorship from a member of the university community. The University has a legitimate interest in conserving its limited resources and maintaining an environment conducive to education, which would be significantly burdened if it had to supervise unsponsored speech across its entire 1,200-acre campus. The requirement of a sponsor is a reasonable means to manage access and preserve the forum's primary purpose.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that public university campuses, despite allowing some public access, are not automatically classified as traditional public forums for unsponsored outsiders. It clarifies that such campuses typically function as limited public forums, where speech restrictions are held to a lower standard of scrutiny (viewpoint neutral and reasonable) than in traditional public forums (strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions). The decision provides significant guidance on how public institutions can balance First Amendment rights with their core missions and resource management, emphasizing the importance of clearly defined and consistently applied policies to avoid charges of viewpoint discrimination or impermissible prior restraint.
