Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski
411 F. App'x 541 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
University officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages when they impose a content-based time, place, and manner restriction on student speech in response to safety concerns about potential audience violence, if the students themselves were the source of the information that created those safety concerns, because the right against such a restriction is not "clearly established" in that specific context.
Facts:
- Rock for Life-UMBC, a registered student organization at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), sought to erect a controversial anti-abortion display called the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on campus in April 2007.
- After initially being denied the University Center Plaza, UMBC officials offered, and Rock for Life accepted, an alternative location known as the Commons Terrace.
- Rock for Life then presented UMBC with a letter requesting a uniformed police presence, citing "numerous unprovoked physical attacks from pro-abortion students" during previous GAP exhibitions on other campuses.
- Based on Rock for Life's letter and a mistaken belief about the large size of the display panels, UMBC officials grew concerned that the Commons Terrace would not be safe in the event of a violent altercation requiring students to flee.
- On the morning of the event, as Rock for Life members began setting up on the Commons Terrace, UMBC officials informed them that the event had been moved to another location, the North Lawn.
- Rock for Life held its display on the North Lawn, but contended that the location received less foot traffic than the Commons Terrace.
- When Rock for Life later attempted to reserve the Commons Terrace for a second GAP display, UMBC again restricted them to the North Lawn, and the group chose not to hold the event.
Procedural Posture:
- Rock for Life-UMBC sued UMBC officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging First Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted the defendants' judgment on the pleadings for claims challenging the university's sexual harassment and emotional harassment policies, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing.
- After discovery, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims related to the university's facilities use policy.
- The district court found that the plaintiffs' facial challenge to the policy was moot and that the as-applied restriction was a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the UMBC officials were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do university officials who move a student group's controversial display to a different location, based in part on safety concerns about potential violence that the student group itself raised, violate a clearly established First Amendment right, thereby losing their qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief District Judge Conrad
No. Although the university officials likely violated the First Amendment by imposing a content-based restriction on speech, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established in the specific context presented. The court reasoned that while a 'heckler's veto'—regulating speech based on listeners' anticipated hostile reactions—is a content-based and generally impermissible restriction, the qualified immunity analysis requires examining the specific situation confronting the officials. Here, the officials' safety concerns arose directly from a letter sent by Rock for Life itself, warning of past violence at similar events. This unique fact meant that it would not have been clear to a reasonable official that moving the event was unlawful. Because the officials made a reasonable, albeit constitutionally questionable, mistake while balancing their duties to permit free expression and ensure student safety, they are protected from personal liability by qualified immunity.
Concurring - Circuit Judge King
No. The university officials are entitled to qualified immunity, but because no constitutional violation occurred in the first place. The majority should not have found a constitutional violation and then granted immunity on the 'clearly established' prong; it should have simply held that the officials' actions were constitutional. The university officials did not impose a 'heckler's veto' but instead acted reasonably in response to security concerns that the plaintiffs themselves raised. To hold otherwise creates a 'reverse heckler's veto,' where a university is trapped between ignoring a student group's safety warnings and risking a lawsuit for taking them seriously. The officials' actions were a permissible, content-neutral response to a security issue brought to their attention by the speakers.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the protective power of qualified immunity, particularly in novel factual scenarios. The court's decision demonstrates that even if a government official's conduct is ultimately found to be unconstitutional, the official can still be shielded from personal liability if the specific right was not 'clearly established' in that particular context. By distinguishing the general rule against a 'heckler's veto' from the specific situation where the speaker warns of violence, the ruling gives officials more latitude when making on-the-ground decisions balancing free speech and public safety. The case signals that future plaintiffs in similar situations will have difficulty overcoming qualified immunity unless they can point to precedent with nearly identical facts.
