American Freedom Defense Initiative v MTA

8/21/2019 American Freedom Defense Initiative v MTA

1/22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

────────────────────────────────────

AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE,

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY, ET AL.,

Defendants. ────────────────────────────────────

14 Cv. 7928 (JGK)

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

Thi s case began when t he def endant , t he Met r opol i t an

Tr ansport at i on Author i t y ( “MTA”) , excl uded f r om i t s adver t i si ng

space on buses a cont r over si al pol i t i cal adver t i sement submi t t ed

by t he pl ai nt i f f s, t he Amer i can Freedom Def ense I ni t i at i ve

( “AFDI ”) and i t s cof ounder s. I n t hi s Cour t ’ s pr evi ous deci si on,

t he Cour t hel d that when t he MTA excl uded t he ad based sol el y on

t he MTA’ s pol i cy pr ohi bi t i ng ads t hat i mmi nent l y i nci t e

vi ol ence, t he MTA vi ol at ed t he Fi r st Amendment . Accor di ngl y,

t he Cour t gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s’ mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he MTA’ s enf or cement of i t s pol i cy t o

pr ohi bi t t he ad, but st ayed t he ef f ect of t he i nj unct i on f or 30

days t o al l ow t he def endant s t o consi der t hei r opt i ons f or

appeal and methods f or di spl ayi ng t he pr oposed adver t i sement .

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , t he MTA, i n what i t cont ends was an act i on

i t had been consi der i ng f or some t i me, amended i t s r egul at i ons

Case 1:14-cv-07928-JGK Document 56 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 22


2/22

2

t o pr ohi bi t t he di spl ay of all pol i t i cal adver t i sement s on MTA

pr opert y ( t he “New Pol i cy”) . The MTA now moves t o di ssol ve t he

pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on or der , ar gui ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’ pr i or

cl ai ms f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef ar e moot because t hey wer e di r ect ed

at t he MTA’ s excl usi on of t he ad under a di f f er ent r egul at i on,

whereas t he MTA i s now excl udi ng t he ad under i t s New Pol i cy

barr i ng al l pol i t i cal ads .

The MTA’ s ban of al l pol i t i cal ads i s a dramat i c change of

ci r cumst ances f r om when t he Cour t i ssued t he pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on or der . The Cour t ’ s gr ant of t he pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on was based on the MTA’ s enf or cement of i t s st andard

pr ohi bi t i ng ads t hat “woul d i mmi nent l y i nci t e or pr ovoke

vi ol ence or other i mmedi ate br each of t he peace, ” but t he MTA’ s

excl usi on of t he pl ai nt i f f s’ ad i s no l onger based on t hat

st andar d. The Cour t anal yzed t he def endant s’ excl usi on of t he

ad under st r i ct scr ut i ny because t he MTA’ s adver t i si ng space

const i t ut ed a “desi gnat ed publ i c f or um” under bi ndi ng Second

Ci r cui t precedent . N. Y. Magazi ne v. Met r o. Tr ansp. Aut h. , 136

F. 3d 123, 130 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) . However , t he st atus of MTA buses

as a desi gnat ed publ i c f orum was based l ar gel y on t he MTA’ s

accept ance of pol i t i cal adver t i sement s. I d. Because t he MTA no

l onger accept s any pol i t i cal adver t i sement s, a di f f er ent

st andar d of r evi ew l i kel y appl i es under t he Fi r st Amendment .



3/22

3

I n sum, t he def endant s’ adopt i on of t he New Pol i cy has

r ender ed t hi s Cour t ’ s pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on moot . The

pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat t he New Pol i cy and t he manner i n whi ch t he

MTA enacted t he New Pol i cy ar e unconst i t ut i onal , but t hose

al l egat i ons shoul d be made i n an amended compl ai nt , whi ch i s not

bef or e t he Cour t . I t i s pl ai n t hat t he l egal basi s f or t hi s

Cour t ’ s pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on has now been r emoved.

Accor di ngl y, t he def endant s’ mot i on t o vacat e t he pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on i s granted.

I.

The f act ual hi st or y of t hi s case i s set f or t h i n t he

Cour t ’ s opi ni on and or der gr ant i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s’ mot i on f or a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. Am. Fr eedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v. Met r o.

Tr ansp. Auth. ( “AFDI v. MTA I I ”) , No. 14cv7928, 2015 WL 1775607,

at *1- 5 ( S. D. N. Y. Apr . 20, 2015) . The Cour t assumes the

par t i es’ f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t hat opi ni on. The f ol l owi ng f actual

and pr ocedur al backgr ound i s provi ded f or i t s r el evance t o t he

cur r ent mot i on.

On Apr i l 20, 2015, t hi s Cour t gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s’

mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he MTA’ s

excl usi on of t he pl ai nt i f f s’ ad cri t i ci zi ng Hamas, whi ch t he

par t i es t er med t he “Ki l l i ng J ews” ad. I d. at *1. The ad

i ncl udes a quot e f r om “Hamas MTV”: “Ki l l i ngs J ews i s Wor shi p



4/22

4

t hat dr aws us cl ose t o Al l ah. ” Under neat h t he quot e, t he ad

st at ed: “That ’ s Hi s J i had. What’s yours?” The pl ai nt i f f s had

sought t o r un t hat ad on MTA buses. The MTA r ef used t o r un t he

ad based on Sect i on ( a) ( x) of t he MTA’ s s t andar ds, whi ch

pr ohi bi t ed ads t hat t he MTA r easonabl y f oresees woul d

“i mmi nent l y i nci t e or pr ovoke vi ol ence or ot her i mmedi at e br each

of t he peace. ” See Compl . ¶ 1. Because t he MTA had not shown

t hat t her e was any obj ect i ve evi dence t o suppor t i t s cont ent i on

t hat t he ad was l i kel y t o i nci t e i mmi nent vi ol ence, and because

t he MTA r ej ected t he ad based on i t s cont ent wi t hout a

compel l i ng i nt er est or a response nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o achi evi ng

any such i nt er est , t he Cour t gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s’ mot i on f or

a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he MTA f r om excl udi ng t he

adver t i sement under Sect i on ( a) ( x) of i t s st andar ds. AFDI v.

MTA I I , 2015 WL 1775607, at *1. The Cour t made cl ear t hat i t

was onl y enj oi ni ng t he MTA’ s enf or cement of Sect i on ( a) ( x) t o

r ej ect t he Ki l l i ngs J ews ad, r at her t han st r i ki ng down t he whol e

st andar d or gr ant i ng any ot her r el i ef . I d. at *10. I n or der t o

enabl e the def endant s t o consi der t hei r appel l at e opt i ons and

met hods f or di spl ay of t he pr oposed adver t i sement , t he Cour t

st ayed t he ef f ect of t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der f or 30

days. I d.



5/22

5

The def endant s di d not appeal t he Court ’ s Apr i l 20 or der ,

but i nst ead, shor t l y af t er t he opi ni on was i ssued, i nf or med t he

Cour t t hat t he MTA Boar d woul d be vot i ng soon on whet her t o

r evi se t he MTA’ s st andar ds t o pr ohi bi t all pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s on MTA pr opert y. See Let t er Dated Apr . 24, 2015

( ECF No. 34) . On Apr i l 29, 2015, af t er hol di ng a publ i c meet i ng

on t he proposal , t he MTA Boar d voted 9- 2 t o adopt t he MTA’ s New

Pol i cy l i mi t i ng i t s accept ance of pol i t i cal ads. See Rosen

Decl . ( ECF No. 46) ¶ 69. Speci f i cal l y, Sect i on I V. B of t he New

Pol i cy pr ohi bi t s any adver t i sement t hat f al l s i nt o t he f ol l owi ng

t wo cat egor i es:

1. Pr omot es or opposes a pol i t i cal par t y, or pr omot es oropposes any bal l ot r ef er endum or t he el ect i on of anycandi dat e or gr oup of candi dat es f or f eder al , st at e, j udi ci al , or l ocal gover nment al of f i ces.

2. I s pol i t i cal i n nat ur e, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o

adver t i sement s t hat ei t her :

a. Ar e di r ect ed or addr essed t o t he act i on, i nact i on,pr ospect i ve act i on or pol i ci es of a gover nment alent i t y, except as per mi t t ed i n [ sect i ons al l owi nggover nment al adver t i si ng and publ i c ser vi ceannouncement s] ; or

b. Promi nent l y or pr edomi nant l y advocate or expr ess apol i t i cal message, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o anopi ni on, posi t i on, or vi ewpoi nt r egar di ng di sput ed

economi c, pol i t i cal , mor al , r el i gi ous or soci ali ssues or r el at ed mat t er s, or suppor t f or oropposi t i on t o di sput ed i ssues or causes.

I d. Ex. J . The New Pol i cy expl i ci t l y pr ovi des that one of i t s

pur poses i s t o “conver t t he MTA’ s Pr oper t y f r om a desi gnat ed



6/22

6

publ i c f or um i nt o a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um, ” and t hat i n doi ng so,

i t seeks t o, among ot her t hi ngs, “mai nt ai n a saf e and wel comi ng

envi r onment f or al l MTA empl oyees and cust omers, ” and “mi ni mi ze

t he resour ces and at t ent i on t hat have been expended t o resol ve

di sput es rel at i ng t o t he per mi ssi bi l i t y of cer t ai n pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s. ” I d. The New Pol i cy does not amend any of t he

MTA’ s ot her exi st i ng st andar ds, i ncl udi ng t he i nci t ement

st andar d t he MTA pr evi ousl y used t o excl ude the Ki l l i ng J ews ad.

The MTA’ s New Pol i cy t ook ef f ect i mmedi at el y af t er i t was

adopt ed. I d. ¶ 74. Def endant J ef f r ey Rosen, t he MTA Di r ect or

of Real Est at e, det er mi ned t hat t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad f al l s wi t hi n

Sect i on I V. B. 2 because i t i s “pol i t i cal i n nat ur e, ” and t hus

woul d not be r un. I d. On May 5, 2015, t he MTA not i f i ed t he

pl ai nt i f f s about i t s det er mi nat i on by e- mai l . I d. Ex. K. On

May 14, 2015, t he def endant s moved t o di ssol ve t he Cour t ’ s

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der .

II.

The def endant s ar gue t hat t he MTA’ s amendment t o i t s

r egul at i ons has r ender ed t he Cour t ’ s pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

or der moot because t hey ar e no l onger excl udi ng t he Ki l l i ng J ews

ad on t he unconst i t ut i onal basi s i dent i f i ed i n t hat or der , and

t he New Pol i cy conver t s t he MTA’ s adver t i si ng space f r om a

desi gnat ed publ i c f or um i nt o a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um. The



7/22

7

pl ai nt i f f s argue t hat t hei r cl ai m f or i nj unct i ve rel i ef i s not

moot f or sever al r easons, i ncl udi ng t hat t he New Pol i cy remai ns

unconst i t ut i onal , t hat t he def endant s amended t hei r pol i cy onl y

t o suppr ess t he pl ai nt i f f s’ vi ews, and t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s

acqui r ed vest ed r i ght s under t he Cour t ’ s pr i or order . For t he

r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he Cour t agr ees wi t h t he def endant s t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest f or i nj uncti ve r el i ef i s now moot .

A.

The def endant s bear a “heavy bur den” i n showi ng t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s’ cl ai ms f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef have become moot . 1

Fr i ends of t he Ear t h, I nc. v. Lai dl aw Envt l . Ser vs. , I nc. , 528

U. S. 167, 189 ( 2000) . “The vol unt ar y cessat i on of al l egedl y

i l l egal conduct usual l y wi l l r ender a case moot i f t he

def endant [ s] can demonst r at e t hat ( 1) t her e i s no r easonabl e

expect at i on t hat t he al l eged vi ol at i on wi l l r ecur and ( 2)

i nt er i m r el i ef or event s have compl et el y and i r r evocabl y

er adi cat ed t he ef f ect s of t he al l eged vi ol at i on. ” Gr ani t e St at e

Out door Adver . , I nc. v. Town of Or ange, Conn. , 303 F. 3d 450, 451

( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( per cur i am) ( quot i ng Campbel l v. Gr ei sber ger, 80

1 Cont r ar y to t he pl ai nt i f f s’ asser t i ons, t he def endant s ar e not ar gui ng t hat

t hi s ent i r e case shoul d be di smi ssed as moot , or t hat t hi s Cour t no l ongerhas j ur i sdi ct i on t o enf or ce t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der . I ndeed, t he

MTA concedes t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s may have l i ve cl ai ms f or nomi nal damages and

at t or neys’ f ees. See Mem. of L. i n Supp. of Def s’ Mot . t o Di ssol ve I nj . ( ECF

No. 45) , at 15 n. 9. Rather t han movi ng t o di smi ss t he case, t he def endant s

ar e movi ng to di ssol ve t he cour t ’ s prel i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der as moot

because i t was deci ded under ci r cumst ances that no l onger exi st .



8/22

8

F. 3d 703, 706 ( 2d Ci r . 1996) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Lamar Adver . of Penn, LLC v. Town of Or chard

Par k, New Yor k, 356 F. 3d 365, 375- 76 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) . “Whi l e a

def endant ' s ‘ vol unt ar y cessat i on of a chal l enged pr act i ce does

not depr i ve a f eder al cour t of i t s power t o det er mi ne t he

l egal i t y of t he pr act i ce, ’ i t i s nonet hel ess ‘ an i mpor t ant

f act or bear i ng on t he quest i on whet her a cour t shoul d exer ci se

i t s power ’ t o ent er t ai n a r equest f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef or

decl ar e i t moot . ” Hol l and v. Goor d, 758 F. 3d 215, 223 ( 2d Ci r .

2014) ( quot i ng Ci t y of Mesqui t e v. Al addi n' s Cast l e, I nc. , 455

U. S. 283, 289 ( 1982) ) .

I n t hi s case, t he onl y conduct t hat t he Cour t pr evi ousl y

enj oi ned as unconst i t ut i onal was t he def endant s’ excl usi on of

t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad under t he “i nci t ement of vi ol ence” st andar d.

The def endant s ar e now onl y excl udi ng t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad under

t he New Pol i cy banni ng pol i t i cal ads, a pol i cy t hey asser t t hat

t hey have no pl ans of r evi si ng. Rosen Decl . ¶¶ 73, 76. Thus,

t he def endant s have ceased t he conduct t hat t he Cour t i dent i f i ed

as unconst i t ut i onal , and the Cour t must deter mi ne whet her t her e

i s a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat t hat i l l egal conduct wi l l

r ecur . Her e, as i n Gr ani t e St at e, “t her e i s no r eason t o t hi nk

t hat , havi ng . . . r evi sed i t s r egul at i ons t hr ough pr oper

pr ocedur es, t he [ MTA] has any i nt ent i on of r et ur ni ng t o” i t s



9/22

9

enf or cement of t he pr i or r egul at i ons. 303 F. 3d at 451- 52. Some

def er ence must be af f or ded t o t he repr esent at i ons of a publ i c

aut hor i t y t hat cer t ai n conduct has been di scont i nued. Lamar

Adver . , 356 F. 3d at 376. I n t hi s case i t woul d be compl et el y

unr eal i st i c t o bel i eve t hat t he MTA woul d r et ur n t o r ej ect i ng

t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad based on t he “i nci t ement of vi ol ence”

st andar d, whi ch t he Cour t f ound t o be unconst i t ut i onal as

appl i ed t o t hat ad. The MTA has adopt ed a new st andard t hat

woul d pr ohi bi t t he ad and has l i mi t ed t he nat ur e of i t s f or um

such t hat t he ent i r e cl ass of pol i t i cal ads i s pr ohi bi t ed.

The pl ai nt i f f s appear t o suggest t hat t he MTA may r et urn t o

i t s unconst i t ut i onal conduct based on t he MTA’ s pur por t ed “l ong

hi st or y” of unl awf ul l y r est r i cti ng t he pl ai nt i f f s’ speech. See

Peopl e Agai nst Pol i ce Vi ol ence v. Ci t y of Pi t t sbur gh, 520 F. 3d

226, 231 n. 2 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) ( r ej ect i ng t he Ci t y’ s moot ness

ar gument based on i t s r epr esent at i on t hat i t woul d no l onger

enf or ce an or di nance because t he Ci t y had a “l ong hi st or y of

unconst i t ut i onal conduct ”) . But i n maki ng t hi s ar gument , t he

pl ai nt i f f s exagger at e t he hi st or y bet ween t he AFDI and t he MTA.

The pl ai nt i f f s can poi nt t o onl y t hree i nst ances, i ncl udi ng t he

pr esent case, i n whi ch t he MTA at t empt ed t o excl ude the AFDI ’ s

many cont r over si al adver t i sement s. I n t he onl y t wo i nst ances



10/22

10

t hat necessi t at ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef f or t he pl ai nt i f f s , 2 nei t her

J udge Engel mayer nor t hi s Cour t quest i oned t he MTA’ s good f ai t h

i n at t empt i ng t o f i nd t he l i ne bet ween enf or ci ng i t s r egul at i ons

and r espect i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s’ f r ee speech r i ght s. See Am.

Freedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v. Met r o. Tr ansp. Aut h. ( “AFDI v. MTA

I ”) , 880 F. Supp. 2d 456, 477 ( S. D. N. Y. 2012) ( “I n hol di ng t oday

t hat MTA' s no- demeani ng st andard vi ol ates t he Fi r st Amendment ,

t he Cour t does not i mpugn i n t he sl i ght est t he mot i ves of MTA

and i t s of f i ci al s. ”) . I ndeed, when t he MTA r ej ected t he Ki l l i ng

J ews ad, i t accept ed several ot her cont r oversi al AFDI

adver t i sement s f or di spl ay. See AFDI v. MTA I I , 2015 WL

1775607, at *3. Her e, as i n Lamar Adver t i si ng, t her e i s

“not hi ng on t hi s r ecor d” t hat woul d l ead t he Cour t t o bel i eve

t hat t he MTA woul d “r et ur n t o t he [ unconst i t ut i onal ] st at e of

af f ai r s t hat exi sted” bef or e t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t . 356

F. 3d at 377 ( hol di ng t hat cl ai ms f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef wer e moot

wher e Town amended r egul at i ons af t er t he pl ai nt i f f f i l ed sui t ) .

B.

“Of cour se, a pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms wi l l not be f ound moot

where t he def endant ' s amendment s ar e merel y superf i ci al or t he

l aw, af t er amendment , suf f er s f r om si mi l ar i nf i r mi t i es as i t di d

2 The pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o one i nst ance wher e t hey submi t t ed an adver t i sement

t hat t he MTA ori gi nal l y r ef used t o accept , but t hen rel ent ed soon af t er t he

pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t . Gel l er Decl . ¶¶ 9- 16.



11/22

11

at t he out set . ” I d. at 378. The pl ai nt i f f s r ai se sever al

argument s as t o why t he MTA’ s act i ons and i t s amended r egul atory

scheme r emai n unconst i t ut i onal : ( 1) t he amendment s were

mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o suppr ess t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s vi ewpoi nt ; ( 2)

t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad does not qual i f y as “pol i t i cal i n nat ur e”

under t he New Pol i cy; and ( 3) t he New Pol i cy i s f aci al l y

i nval i d. As an i ni t i al mat t er , as i n Lamar Adver t i si ng, t he

pl ai nt i f f s have not amended t hei r compl ai nt t o rai se t hese new

cl ai ms, and t hus t hey ar e not pr oper l y bef or e t he Cour t . I d.

Amendi ng t hei r compl ai nt woul d al l ow t he pl ai nt i f f s t o assert

t he pr eci se as- appl i ed and f aci al Fi r st Amendment cl ai ms t hey

are al l egi ng agai nst t he MTA and t he New Pol i cy, conduct

di scovery on t hese cl ai ms, and bet t er devel op t he r ecor d bef or e

t hi s Cour t under t hese changed ci r cumst ances. 3

For pur poses of t he cur r ent mot i on, however , t he def endant s

have shown t hat t hei r change i n pol i cy has “suf f i ci ent l y

al t er ed” t he ci r cumst ances under l yi ng t hi s case “so as t o

pr esent a subst ant i al l y di f f er ent cont r over sy f r om t he one t hat

exi st ed when t hi s sui t was f i l ed. ” I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . And t he pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o show at t hi s

3 The pl ai nt i f f s r equest t hat t he Cour t wi t hhol d i t s r ul i ng on t hi s mot i on f or

t hr ee mont hs whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f s conduct di scover y on t he MTA’ s amendment of

i t s standar ds. But t her e i s no basi s to hol d t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i n

abeyance any l onger , r at her t han al l owi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s t o amend thei r

compl ai nt , af t er whi ch t hey may t hen conduct di scover y on t he al l egat i ons i n

t he amended compl ai nt .



12/22

12

poi nt t hat t hei r al l egat i ons ar e l i kel y t o j ust i f y i nj unct i ve

r el i ef .

When t he government pr ovi des a f orum f or pr i vat e speech,

t he nat ur e of t hat f or um det er mi nes t he l evel of scrut i ny t hat

cour t s appl y t o gover nment r est r i ct i ons of t hat speech. See

Cor nel i us v. NAACP Legal Def ense & Ed. Fund, I nc. , 473 U. S. 788,

800 ( 1985) . I n t he pl ai nt i f f s’ i ni t i al mot i on, t he def endant s

conceded t hat t he MTA’ s adver t i si ng space was a desi gnated

publ i c f or um under t he bi ndi ng Second Ci r cui t pr ecedent of N. Y.

Magazi ne. See AFDI v. MTA I I , 2015 WL 1775607, at *6.

Ther ef or e, because t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad qual i f i ed as prot ect ed

speech and t he def endant s r est r i ct ed i t based on i t s cont ent ,

t he Cour t appl i ed st r i ct scr ut i ny t o the def endant s’ conduct and

r equi r ed t hat t hei r excl usi on of t he ad be “j ust i f i ed by a

compel l i ng government i nt erest and [ be] nar r owl y dr awn t o ser ve

t hat i nt er est . ” I d. at * 6, 9 ( quot i ng Br own v. Ent m’ t Mer chs.

Ass’ n, 131 S. Ct . 2729, 2738 ( 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . However , t he Cour t of Appeal s i n N. Y. Magazi ne made

cl ear t hat i t s hol di ng l abel i ng t he MTA’ s adver t i si ng space a

desi gnated publ i c f or um was based al most ent i r el y on t he MTA’ s

al l owance of pol i t i cal speech, whi ch “evi dence[ d] a gener al

i nt ent t o open a space f or di scour se, and a del i ber at e



13/22

13

accept ance of t he possi bi l i t y of cl ashes of opi ni on and

cont r over sy. ” 136 F. 3d at 130.

Al t hough the MTA’ s adver t i si ng space r emai ned a desi gnated

publ i c f or um i n t he t i me si nce N. Y. Magazi ne, t he MTA “i s not

r equi r ed t o i ndef i ni t el y ret ai n t he open char acter ” of i t s

pr oper t y. Chi l dr en Fi r st Found. , I nc. v. Fi al a, No. 11- 5199- CV,

2015 WL 2444501, at *6 ( 2d Ci r . May 22, 2015) ( quot i ng Per r y

Educ. Ass' n v. Per r y Local Educat or s' Ass' n, 460 U. S. 37, 46

( 1983) ) . I ndeed, “t he government may deci de t o cl ose a

desi gnated publ i c f or um. ” Make The Rd. by Wal ki ng, I nc. v.

Tur ner , 378 F. 3d 133, 143 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) . As t he Cour t of

Appeal s r ecogni zed i n N. Y. Magazi ne, i f al l owi ng pol i t i cal

speech shows an i nt ent t o open t he f or um, “[ d] i sal l owi ng

pol i t i cal speech, and al l owi ng commer ci al speech onl y, i ndi cat es

t hat maki ng money i s t he mai n goal . ” 136 F. 3d at 130.

Accordi ngl y, t he Supr eme Cour t and sever al cour t s of

appeal s have made cl ear t hat publ i c aut hor i t i es are not r equi r ed

t o accept pol i t i cal adver t i sement s, and when t hey excl ude such

ads, t hey cr eat e a l i mi t ed publ i c or nonpubl i c f or um. See,

e. g. , Lehman v. Ci t y of Shaker Hei ght s, 418 U. S. 298, 303- 04

( 1974) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( hol di ng t hat no Fi r st Amendment

f or um exi st ed wher e Ci t y onl y al l owed commer ci al adver t i si ng on

i t s t r ansi t syst em pr oper t y) ; Lebr on v. Nat ' l R. R. Passenger



14/22

14

Cor p. ( Amt r ak) , 69 F. 3d 650, 656 ( 2d Ci r . ) ( hol di ng t hat Amt r ak

bi l l boar d was a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um i n l i ght of i t s excl usi on

of pol i t i cal speech) , opi ni on amended on deni al of r eh' g, 89

F. 3d 39 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) ; Am. Freedom Def . I ni t i at i ve v. Subur ban

Mobi l i t y Aut h. f or Reg' l Tr ansp. ( “AFDI v. SMART”) , 698 F. 3d

885, 890 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ( “SMART has banned pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s, speech t hat i s t he hal l mar k of a publ i c

f or um. ”) . Most r ecent l y, t he Second Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s

hel d t hat t he cust om l i cense pl at e pr ogr am di r ect ed by t he New

York Depar t ment of Mot or Vehi cl es ( “DMV”) was a nonpubl i c f or um

because t he DMV “consi st ent l y excl ud[ ed] cont r over si al pol i t i cal

speech” f r om t he pr ogr am. Chi l dr en Fi r st , 2015 WL 2444501, at

*8. 4

I n l i ght of t hese pr ecedent s, i t i s l i kel y t hat t he MTA’ s

excl usi on of al l pol i t i cal ads has conver t ed i t s adver t i si ng

4 I n Chi l dr en Fi r st , t he Cour t of Appeal s hel d i t s mandat e pendi ng the Supr eme

Cour t ’ s deci si on r egar di ng a chal l enge t o the Texas cust oml i cense pl at e

pr ogr am i n Wal ker v. Texas Di v. , Sons of Conf eder at e Vet erans, I nc. , 135

S. Ct . 752 ( 2014) . Chi l dr en Fi r st , 2015 WL 2444501, at *20. Two days af t er

oral argument was hel d on t hi s mot i on, t he Supreme Cour t i ssued i t s deci si on

i n Wal ker v. Texas Di v. , Sons of Conf eder at e Vet er ans, I nc. , 576 U. S. ___

( 2015) , hol di ng t hat Texas’ s cust om l i cense pl at e pr ogr am const i t ut es

gover nment speech, and t hus f orum anal ysi s does not appl y. I d. at *6, 13.

The Cour t di st i ngui shed t he l i cense pl at e program f r om t he “adver t i si ng on

ci t y buses” f ound t o be a nonpubl i c f orumi n Lehman because t he busadver t i sement s wer e “l ocat ed i n a cont ext ( adver t i si ng space) t hat i s

t r adi t i onal l y avai l abl e f or pr i vat e speech, ” and because “the adver t i si ng

space, i n cont r ast t o l i cense pl at es, bore no i ndi ci a t hat t he speech was

owned or conveyed t o t he gover nment . ” I d. at *16- 17. Accor di ngl y, f orum

anal ysi s r emai ns appr opr i at e i n t hi s case, whi ch, l i ke Lehman, concer ns t he

adver t i si ng space on ci t y buses.



15/22

15

space f r om a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um t o a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um

or a nonpubl i c f orum. 5 The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he above cases

shoul d not appl y because i n those cases, t he def endant s al l owed

only commer ci al adver t i si ng, wher eas t he MTA’ s New Pol i cy st i l l

al l ows publ i c servi ce announcement s. Whi l e t he pl ai nt i f f s may

seek t o devel op t hi s cl ai m f ur t her i n t he cont ext of a f aci al

chal l enge i n an amended compl ai nt , i t i s suf f i ci ent t o not e her e

t hat cour t s have not been t hat r est r i ct i ve. For exampl e, i n t he

amended opi ni on i n Lebr on, t he Cour t of Appeal s not ed t hat

Amt r ak’ s al l owance of many “publ i c servi ce announcement s” on i t s

bi l l boar d space di d not conver t i t t o a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um.

89 F. 3d at 40; see al so AFDI v. SMART, 698 F. 3d at 892- 93

( hol di ng t hat t r ansi t agency t hat excl uded pol i t i cal ads but

al l owed publ i c servi ce ads creat ed nonpubl i c f or um) . The

hol di ng i n N. Y. Magazi ne was pr emi sed on t he al l owance of

pol i t i cal speech and “cl ashes of opi ni on and cont r over sy, ” not

merel y publ i c ser vi ce announcement s. 136 F. 3d at 130.

5 A nonpubl i c f orumi s gover nment pr oper t y t hat has not been opened f or

expr essi ve act i vi t y by member s of t he publ i c. A r est r i ct i on on speech i n a

nonpubl i c f orum need onl y be r easonabl e and vi ewpoi nt neut r al . See Chi l dr en

Fi r st , 2015 WL 2444501, at *6. A l i mi t ed publ i c f or um i s opened t o cer t ai n

ki nds of speaker s and subj ect s. St r i ct scr ut i ny i s appl i ed onl y t o speecht hat f al l s wi t hi n t he cat egor y t hat i s opened. Ot her wi se, r est r i ct i ons need

onl y be r easonabl e and vi ewpoi nt neut r al . I d. I n t hi s case, because t he MTA

has excl uded al l pol i t i cal ads, t he r ej ecti on of any ad as pol i t i cal i s

anal yzed by whet her t he excl usi on i s r easonabl e and vi ewpoi nt neut r al ,

r egar dl ess of whet her t he adver t i si ng space i s a nonpubl i c or l i mi t ed publ i c

f orum.



16/22

16

I n a f act ual l y anal ogous case i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he East er n Di st r i ct of Mi chi gan, t he pl ai nt i f f

i ni t i al l y sought and was gr ant ed a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on when a

t r ansi t agency unconst i t ut i onal l y excl uded hi s adver t i sement

t hat was cr i t i cal of I sr ael . Col eman v. Ann Ar bor Transp.

Aut h. , 947 F. Supp. 2d 777, 779 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2013) . Ther eaf t er ,

t he t r ansi t agency amended i t s pol i cy t o excl ude al l pol i t i cal

ads, and t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s request

f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef was moot because t here was no “ongoi ng

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on” and t hat t he change i n pol i cy

pr esent ed a “subst ant i al l y di f f er ent cont r over sy t han t he one

pr evi ousl y bef or e [ t he] Cour t . ” I d. at 783- 85. The same r esul t

i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s case. Wi t h t he MTA’ s change i n pol i cy,

t he Cour t ’ s s t andard of r evi ew becomes more l eni ent t han t he

st r i ct scrut i ny t he Cour t appl i ed i n t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

or der . Rest r i ct i ons on access to a l i mi t ed publ i c f or um must be

vi ewpoi nt neut r al and r easonabl e. Chr i st i an Legal Soc. Chapt er

of t he Uni v. of Cal i f or ni a, Hast i ngs Col l . of t he Law v.

Mart i nez, 561 U. S. 661, 679 ( 2010) . Because the MTA i s no

l onger enf or ci ng t he r egul at i ons at i ssue i n t he Cour t ’ s pr i or

or der , and because t hei r act i ons l i kel y woul d be subj ect t o a

di f f er ent l egal st andar d, t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest f or i nj uncti ve

r el i ef i s moot .



17/22

17

C.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hei r r equest f or i nj unct i ve

r el i ef i s st i l l l i ve because t hey acqui r ed vest ed r i ght s under

st at e l aw af t er t hi s Cour t i ni t i al l y gr ant ed t hei r pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on mot i on. “[ A] par t y may aver t moot ness of i t s cl ai m

i f i t demonst r at es t hat , pr i or t o t he amendment i t accr ued

cer t ai n pr oper t y ri ght s or f i xed expect at i ons pr ot ect ed under

st at e l aw. ” Lamar Adver . , 356 F. 3d at 379. However , t he

pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat t hey acqui r ed any vest ed r i ght s

under st at e l aw pr i or t o t he MTA’ s enact ment of t he New Pol i cy.

See i d. ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f chal l engi ng si gn or di nance

under t he Fi r st Amendment di d not acqui r e any vest ed r i ght s

under New Yor k st ate l aw) .

To show t hey have acqui r ed vest ed r i ght s under New Yor k

l aw, t he pl ai nt i f f s rel y ent i r el y on Pokoi k v. Si l sdor f , 358

N. E. 2d 874 ( N. Y. 1976) , i n whi ch t he New Yor k Cour t of Appeal s

hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f was “ent i t l ed t o a [ a bui l di ng] per mi t

as a mat t er of r i ght ” due t o hi s compl i ance wi t h t he appl i cat i on

pr ocedur es bef ore t hey were amended. I d. at 876. Subsequent l y,

however , t he New Yor k Cour t of Appeal s has made cl ear t hat t he

“speci al f act s except i on” r el i ed upon i n Pokoi k i s onl y appl i ed

i n t he cont ext of l and use di sput es, and al so requi r es

“ext ensi ve del ay i ndi cat i ve of bad f ai t h, ” “unj ust i f i abl e



18/22

18

act i ons, ” or “abuse of admi ni st r at i ve pr ocedur es” by muni ci pal

of f i ci al s. Rocky Poi nt Dr i ve- I n, L. P. v. Town of Br ookhaven,

999 N. E. 2d 1164, 1167 ( N. Y. 2013) ; see al so El l i ngt on Const .

Cor p. v. Zoni ng Bd. of Appeal s, 566 N. E. 2d 128, 132 ( N. Y. 1990)

( “The doct r i ne of vest ed r i ght s has gener al l y been descr i bed as

an appl i cat i on of t he const i t ut i onal l y based common- l aw r ul e

pr ot ect i ng nonconf or mi ng uses. ”) . The pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o no

case under New Yor k l aw where an appl i cant acqui r ed a vest ed

r i ght t o r un an adver t i sement on publ i c pr oper t y. And Lamar

Adver t i si ng expl i ci t l y r ej ected a si mi l ar cl ai m. 356 F. 3d at

379.

Accor di ngl y, t he pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat t hey

acqui r ed a vest ed r i ght pr i or t o the MTA’ s amendment of i t s

r egul at i ons.

D.

Fi nal l y, none of t he as- appl i ed or f aci al chal l enges t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f s asser t agai nst t he New Pol i cy i n t hi s mot i on

war r ant ext endi ng t he Cour t ’ s pr evi ous pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

or der t o enj oi n t he MTA f r om enf or ci ng t he New Pol i cy to rej ect

t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad. Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s may asser t t hese

cl ai ms i n an amended compl ai nt i n or der t o devel op t hem f ur t her ,

based on t he r ecor d cur r ent l y bef or e t he Cour t , t he pl ai nt i f f s

have not shown t hat any of t hei r chal l enges t o t he New Pol i cy



19/22

19

have a st r ong l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s. See New Yor k

Progr ess & Prot . PAC v. Wal sh, 733 F. 3d 483, 488 ( 2d Ci r . 2013)

( “When a par t y seeks a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on on t he basi s of a

pot ent i al Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on, t he l i kel i hood of success

on t he mer i t s wi l l of t en be t he det er mi nat i ve f act or . ” ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he provi si on of t he New Pol i cy

under whi ch t he Ki l l i ng J ews ad i s now excl uded, whi ch pr ohi bi t s

adver t i sement s “r egar di ng di sput ed economi c, pol i t i cal , mor al ,

r el i gi ous or soci al i ssues or r el at ed mat t er s, ” Rosen Decl . Ex.

J , vest s t he MTA wi t h t oo much di scr et i on because i t al l ows i t

t o det er mi ne whi ch i ssues ar e “di sput ed. ” But t hat l anguage i s

pl ai nl y an i l l ust r at i ve exampl e of t he New Pol i cy’ s br oader ban

of any ad t hat i s “pol i t i cal i n nat ur e. ” I d. Cour t s have f ound

t hat such a “cat egor i cal ban agai nst pol i t i cal adver t i si ng, ”

even when “i nar t f ul l y phr ased, ” pr ovi des suf f i ci ent gui dance t o

r est r i ct t he di scr et i on of t he gover nment act or and sur vi ve

f aci al chal l enges. Lebr on, 69 F. 3d at 658; see al so AFDI v.

SMART, 698 F. 3d at 893 ( hol di ng t hat pol i cy pr ohi bi t i ng

“pol i t i cal adver t i si ng” was “not so vague or ambi guous t hat a

per son coul d not r eadi l y i dent i f y t he appl i cabl e st andar d”

( br acket s and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . At t hi s



20/22

20

st age, t he pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat t he New Pol i cy’ s

pr ohi bi t i on of pol i t i cal adver t i s i ng i s f aci al l y def ect i ve.

The pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he MTA’ s amendment of i t s

pol i cy was mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o suppr ess t he pl ai nt i f f s’

speech i n par t i cul ar . The pl ai nt i f f s ci t e Col eman i n ar gui ng

t hat “changes t o a f or um mot i vat ed by act ual vi ewpoi nt

di scr i mi nat i on may wel l l i mi t t he gover nment ' s f r eedo m of

act i on. ” 947 F. Supp. 2d at 788. However , i f t he New Pol i cy i s

an ot her wi se const i t ut i onal bl anket ban of pol i t i cal

adver t i si ng, a pur por t ed i l l i ci t mot i ve by t he MTA may not be

suf f i ci ent t o i nval i dat e i t . See Uni t ed St at es v. O' Br i en, 391

U. S. 367, 383 ( 1968) ( “I t i s a f ami l i ar pr i nci pl e of

const i t ut i onal l aw t hat t hi s Cour t wi l l not st r i ke down an

ot her wi se const i t ut i onal st at ut e on t he basi s of an al l eged

i l l i ci t l egi sl at i ve mot i ve. ”) .

Mor eover , as i n Col eman, “t her e has been i nsuf f i ci ent

f act ual devel opment on t he i ssue of act ual vi ewpoi nt

di scr i mi nat i on. ” 947 F. Supp. 2d at 788. The pl ai nt i f f s poi nt

t o ant i - AFDI st at ement s made at t he MTA’ s hear i ng t hat l ed to

t he New Pol i cy, but t hose st at ement s may have l i t t l e or no

bear i ng on t he Boar d’ s deci si on t o amend t he pol i cy. See

O' Br i en, 391 U. S. at 384 ( “What mot i vat es one l egi sl at or t o make

a speech about a st at ut e i s not necessar i l y what mot i vat es



21/22

21

scor es of ot her s t o enact i t . ”) . The def endant s assur e t he

Cour t t hat t hi s change i n pol i cy had been debated f or some t i me,

and t hey poi nt t o a hi st or y of cont ent i ous pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s di spl ayed on MTA pr opert y. These adver t i sement s

come f r om many di f f er ent gr oups, not j ust t he AFDI , and cover a

wi de var i et y of cont r over si al per spect i ves—on t he Mi ddl e East

conf l i ct and I sl am. See Rosen Decl . ¶¶ 45- 55. The pl ai nt i f f s

may have been especi al l y vocal par t i ci pant s i n t he “soundi ng

boar d f or Mi ddl e East pol i cy debat es” t hat t he MTA’ s proper t y

of f er ed, i d. ¶ 45, but t he r ecor d suggest s t he MTA has si l enced

t he ent i r e debat e on i t s pr oper t y, not j ust t he pl ai nt i f f s’ ad.

I ndeed, t he MTA poi nt s t o ot her adver t i sement s submi t t ed i n

opposi t i on t o t he AFDI ’ s ads t hat t he MTA has al r eady r ej ect ed

under t he New Pol i cy. See i d. ¶ 79 ( not i ng r ej ect i on of t he

sat i r i cal “The Musl i ms ar e Comi ng” campai gn) .

Some may regr et t he MTA’ s pr ohi bi t i on of pol i t i cal

adver t i sement s and t he r esul t i ng l oss of a publ i c f or um f or

heat ed pol i t i cal debat e. But no l aw r equi r es publ i c t r ansi t

agenci es t o accept pol i t i cal adver t i sement s as a mat t er of

cour se, and i t i s not f or t hi s Cour t t o i mpose i t s own vi ews on

what t ype of f or um t he MTA shoul d cr eat e. J ust as t he MTA

creat ed a desi gnat ed publ i c f or um on i t s pr oper t y by “i nvi t [ i ng]

. . . pol i t i cal speech” and t he ensui ng “cl ashes of opi ni on and



22/22

22

cont r over sy, ” Chi l dr en Fi r st , 2015 WL 2444501, at *7 ( quot i ng

N. Y. Magazi ne, 136 F. 3d at 130 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) , t he MTA may resci nd t hat i nvi t at i on i n or der t o

r educe t he pol i t i cal cont r over sy ami dst t he MTA’ s day- t o- day

oper at i on of i t s publ i c t r ansi t system. The pl ai nt i f f s may

r ai se t he quest i on of whether t he MTA’ s act i ons wer e

unconst i t ut i onal i n an amended compl ai nt . But at t hi s st age,

t he pl ai nt i f f s ’ or i gi nal r equest f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef i s moot ,

and t he Cour t ’ s pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der shoul d be vacat ed.

Accor di ngl y, t he def endant s’ mot i on t o di ssol ve the pr el i mi nar y

i nj uncti on or der i s granted.

CONCLUSION

The Cour t has consi dered al l of t he ar gument s of t he

par t i es. To t he ext ent not speci f i cal l y addr essed above, t he

r emai ni ng ar gument s ar e ei t her moot or wi t hout mer i t . For t he

r easons di scussed above, t he def endant s’ mot i on t o di ssol ve t he

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on or der i ssued by thi s Cour t on Apr i l 20,

2015, i s granted. The Cl er k i s directed to close Docket No. 44.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York

June 19, 2015 _________/s/_________________

John G. KoeltlUnited States District Judge


Documents

American Freedom Defense Initiative v MTA