Dane County Circuit Court Dismissal in Wisconsin v Crute 020514

8/13/2019 Dane County Circuit Court Dismissal in Wisconsin v Crute 020514

1/24

1

STATE OF WI SCONSI N CI RCUI T COURT DANE COUNTYBRANCH 1

STATE OF WI SCONSI N,Pl ai nt i f f , DECISION AND ORDER

OF DISMISSAL

vs. Case No. 13FO2108

MI CHAEL W. CRUTE,Def endant .

INTRODUCTION

On J ul y 24, 2013, Mi chael Cr ut e par t i ci pat ed i n t he

Sol i dar i t y Si ng- Al ong i n t he Capi t ol r ot unda. The pol i ce i ssued

hi m a ci t at i on f or not havi ng a per mi t . Mr . Cr ut e moves t o

di smi ss t he ci t at i on. He ar gues that t he per mi t r equi r ement

vi ol at es t he Fi r st Amendment because i t appl i es, on i t s f ace, t o

ver y smal l gr oups. I t i s ther ef or e not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o

addr ess t he l egi t i mat e i nt er est s of t he gover nment i n r equi r i ng a

per mi t . I agr ee, and gr ant t he mot i on.

FACTS

Gi ven t he pr ocedur al post ur e of t he case, t he f act ual r ecor d

her e i s scant .

For some t i me l eadi ng up t o J ul y 24, 2013, var i ous peopl e

engaged i n a noont i me si ng- al ong at t he Wi sconsi n St at e Capi t ol

r ot unda. Thi s came t o be known as t he Sol i dar i t y Si ng- Al ong. I t


2/24

2

was gener al l y a f or m of pr ot est agai nst r ecent l egi sl at i on

changi ng publ i c empl oyee col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r i ght s and ot her

i ssues. A usef ul di scussi on of t he Capi t ol r ot unda as a f or um

and t he Sol i dar i t y Si ng- Al ong appear s i n Ki ssi ck v. Huebsch, 2013WL 3451571, *4- 5 ( W. D. Wi s. J ul y 8, 2013) . The par t i es her e

acknowl edge t he f act s set f or t h i n Ki ssi ck. 1

Ki ssi ck was a f eder al cour t chal l enge to t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of per mi t r equi r ement s appl i cabl e t o t he

Capi t ol . I t wi l l be di scussed i n some det ai l bel ow. The cour t i n

Ki ssi ck i ssued a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he st at e f r om

r equi r i ng a per mi t f or event s i n t he r ot unda ant i ci pat ed t o

at t r act f ewer t han t went y par t i ci pant s. I d. at *22.

The f ol l owi ng addi t i onal f act s ar e t aken f r om t he af f i davi t

of Todd Tuschel , a Capi t ol Pol i ce capt ai n. The af f i davi t i s

at t ached as Exhi bi t I t o t he st at e s br i ef i n opposi t i on t o Mr .

Cr ut e s mot i on t o di smi ss. 2

As of J ul y 24, 2013, whi l e t he number of si nger s r egul ar l y

exceeded t went y, no one associ at ed wi t h t he Sol i dar i t y Si ng- Al ong

obt ai ned a per mi t . To addr ess t hat , t he Capi t ol Pol i ce f ol l owed

1Per st at ement s of counsel at st atus conf erence, Oct ober 28, 2013.

2Each si de asks me t o consi der mater i al s beyond t he ci t at i on. Thef act s set f or t h i n t hose mat er i al s ar e undi sput ed, and t he i ssuepr esent ed her e i s sol el y one of l aw.


3/24


4/24

4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A pr et r i al conf erence was hel d Sept ember 6, 2013. Mr . Cr ut e

r equest ed a mot i on hear i ng on hi s cont empl ated Fi r st Amendmentmot i on. He f i l ed hi s mot i on Oct ober 28, 2013. We hel d a st at us

conf erence the same day and set a br i ef i ng schedul e.

November 21, 2013, t he st at e moved t o amend t he ci t at i on

f r om a char ge under Adm 2. 14( 2) ( v) t o a char ge under Adm

2. 14( 2) ( vm) ( 5) . The or i gi nal char ge, under sub. ( v) , appl i ed t o

one who conduct s an event i n the Capi t ol wi t hout appr oval of

t he Depar t ment of Admi ni st r at i on. The amended char ge, under

sub. ( vm) ( 5) , appl i ed t o a par t i ci pant or spect at or wi t hi n a

gr oup const i t ut i ng an unl awf ul assembl y, who i nt ent i onal l y f ai l s

or r ef uses t o wi t hdr aw f r om t he assembl y af t er i t has been

decl ar ed unl awf ul . An event may be decl ar ed unl awf ul i f i t s

par t i ci pant s wer e i n t he bui l di ng wi t hout aut hor i zat i on.

Wi t hi n a week of t he st ate s mot i on t o amend, Mr . Cr ut e

f i l ed a l et t er st at i ng t hat he di d not oppose t he mot i on t o

amend. He encl osed a r evi sed mot i on t o di smi ss and br i ef

addr essi ng t he new charge. Because both r ul es sought t o enf orce

a per mi t r equi r ement , t he i ssue was essent i al l y t he same underei t her subsect i on. The par t i es f ol l owed t he est abl i shed br i ef i ng

schedul e. Or al argument was hel d J anuary 23, 2014 and t he mat t er


5/24

5

i s now r eady t o be deci ded. 3

DISCUSSION

1.The r ul e.

As of J ul y 24, 2013, t he day of Mr . Cr ut e s ci t at i on,

Chapt er Adm 2 of t he Wi sconsi n Admi ni st r at i ve Code had been

t emporar i l y amended by emergency r ul es i ssued Apr i l 11, 2013,

ef f ect i ve Apr i l 16, 2013. Those r ul es expi r ed Sept ember 12,

2013. The emer gency r ul e i n quest i on pr ovi ded as f ol l ows:

( 2) I n or der t o pr eser ve t he or der whi ch i s necessar y f ort he enj oyment of f r eedom by occupant s of t he bui l di ngs andf aci l i t i es, and i n or der t o pr event acti vi t i es whi chphysi cal l y obst r uct access t o depar t ment l ands and bui l di ngsor pr event t he st at e f r om car r yi ng on i t s i nst r uct i onal ,r esear ch, publ i c ser vi ce, or admi ni st r at i ve f unct i ons, andpur suant t o s. 16. 846, St at s. , whoever does any of t hef ol l owi ng shal l be subj ect t o a f or f ei t ur e of not mor e than$500:

( v) Wi t hout appr oval of t he depar t ment , conduct s an event i nt hose bui l di ngs and f aci l i t i es managed or l eased by thedepar t ment or on pr oper t i es sur r oundi ng t hose bui l di ngs.

( vm) Any par t i ci pant or spect at or wi t hi n a gr oupconst i t ut i ng an unl awf ul assembl y, who i nt ent i onal l y f ai l sor r ef uses t o wi t hdr aw f r om t he assembl y af t er i t has beendecl ar ed unl awf ul , shal l be subj ect t o t he penal t i esi dent i f i ed i n sub. ( 2) ( i nt r o. ) . Any event may be decl ar edunl awf ul i f i t s part i ci pant s :* * *

3On J anuar y 29, 2014, I r ecei ved an ei ght - page, si ngl e- spaced l et t er ,

wi t h at t achment s, f r om t he st at e. Yest er day I r ecei ved a r epl y f r omMr . Cr ut e. I have gr eat r espect f or t he t i me and hard wor k counselhave put i nt o t hi s case. Unf or t unat el y, I need t o dr aw t he l i ne onsuppl ement al br i ef i ng. I cannot consi der mat er i al s t hat wer e f i l edaf t er t he br i ef i ng schedul e and oral argument . Each si de had ampl eoppor t uni t y t o devel op i t s ar gument s i n t he br i ef s and at or alargument . We have f ol l owed an order l y process, and at some poi nt wemust have f i nal i t y.


6/24

6

5. Ent er or occupy any bui l di ng or f aci l i t y managed orl eased by the depar t ment , wi t hout aut hor i zat i on.

Wi s. Admi n. Code Adm 2. 14( 2) ( v) and ( vm) ( 5) .

2. The par t i es posi t i ons.

Mr . Cr ut e s ar gument i s t hat t he r ul e i s unconst i t ut i onal on

i t s f ace because i t r equi r ed even ver y smal l gr oups of

i ndi vi dual s t o obt ai n per mi ssi on bef or e engagi ng i n expr essi ve

act i vi t y i n t he Capi t ol r ot unda. Ther ef or e, t he r ul e i s not

nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o meet t he l egi t i mat e gover nment al i nt er est s

under l yi ng a per mi t r equi r ement , and t he r ul e f ai l s t he wel l -

est abl i shed t i me, pl ace, and manner t est t hat has devel oped i n

Fi r st Amendment j ur i sprudence.

The st at e urges me t o f ol l ow, even adopt ( Br i ef at 9) , t he

Ki ssi ck deci si on, and t hus, i n our case, t he st at e does not

di sput e t he pr emi se t hat t he r ul e cannot be const i t ut i onal l y

appl i ed to ver y smal l gr oups. 4 The st at e ar gues i nst ead t hat ,

f ol l owi ng Ki ssi ck, i t l i mi t ed enf or cement of t he r ul e t o gr oups

of mor e t han t went y, t hus avoi di ng any const i t ut i onal pr obl em.

4The st at e s posi t i on here i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he one i t advanced i n

another case assi gned t o t hi s br anch, St ate v. Voth, 13FO2237. Thatci t at i on was i ssued bef or e Ki ssi ck, and t her ef or e t he ar gument t hatt he rul e can be saved because the st at e l i mi t ed i t s appl i cat i on i naccor dance wi t h t he Ki ssi ck i nj unct i on, i s not avai l abl e. Hence i nVot h, t he st at e has ur ged me t o r ej ect t he concl usi on r eached i nKi ssi ck. I have decl i ned t o do so, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of i t surgi ng me her e t o adopt i t .


7/24

7

3. The r ul e i s not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o meet a si gni f i cantgover nment al i nt er est .

The Ki ssi ck case, 2013 WL 3451571, i s cent r al t o my

deci si on. Bot h si des rel y on i t ; as not ed, t he st at e expr essl y

ur ges me t o adopt i t . I agr ee t hat i t i s wel l - r easoned and

suppor t ed by cl ear l y- est abl i shed pr ecedent . I wi l l f ol l ow i t s

r easoni ng.

I n t hat case, Mr . Ki ssi ck, who want ed t o occasi onal l y

par t i ci pat e i n t he Sol i dar i t y Si ng- Al ong, f i l ed an acti on i n

f eder al cour t agai nst t he Secr et ar y of t he Wi sconsi n Depar t ment

of Admi ni st r at i on and t he Chi ef of t he Capi t ol Pol i ce. He

cl ai med t hat t he permi t r equi r ement 5 as appl i ed t o t he St at e

Capi t ol r ot unda i nf r i nged on hi s Fi r st and Four t eent h Amendment

r i ght s under t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. He sought a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng t he enf or cement of t he per mi t

r equi r ement .

J udge Wi l l i am M. Conl ey wr ot e a t hor ough deci si on car ef ul l y

eval uat i ng Mr . Ki ssi ck s var i ous const i t ut i onal ar gument s. Whi l e

t he cour t f ound l i t t l e mer i t i n some of t he ar gument s, i tdetermi ned t hatMr . Ki ssi ck demonst r at ed a st r ong l i kel i hood of

5The r equi r ement addr essed i n Ki ss i ck was t he emergency r ul e i n quest i on here and a

so- cal l ed Access Pol i cy pr ovi di ng suppl ement al gui dance t o t he publ i c. I d. at *4.


8/24

8

success i n est abl i shi ng t hat t he per mi t r equi r ement was

unconst i t ut i onal i n t wo r espect s. The one r el evant her e i s t hat

t he r equi r ement was not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o a si gni f i cant

gover nment al i nt er est . Ther ef or e i t was not a r easonabl er est r i ct i on on t he t i me, pl ace, and manner of pr ot ect ed speech.

That concl usi on f or ms t he sol e basi s f or Mr . Cr ute s chal l enge.

Because Ki ssi ck i s cent r al t o t hi s mot i on, I wi l l descri be

t he cour t s hol di ng on t hi s si ngl e poi nt i n some det ai l ; f ur t her

di scussi on of t he subst ant i al Fi r st Amendment aut hor i t y on whi ch

i t i s based becomes unnecessary.

I t i s wel l - establ i shed t hat :

[ t ] he government may i mpose any r easonabl e rest r i ct i on ont he t i me, pl ace, or manner of pr ot ect ed speech, so l ong asi t i s j ust i f i ed wi t hout r ef er ence t o t he cont ent of t her egul at ed speech, . . . nar r owl y tai l or ed t o ser ve asi gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est , and . . . l eave[ s] openampl e al t er nat i ve channel s f or communi cat i on of t hei nf or mat i on. [ War d v. ] Rock Agai nst Raci sm, 491 U. S. [ 781]at 791 [ ( 1989) ] . . .

I d. at *15.

The cour t det er mi ned t hat t he per mi t r equi r ement passed

must er under t wo of t he t hr ee t i me, pl ace and manner cr i t er i a.

The general per mi t r equi r ement f or al l event s r egar dl ess of si ze

appear ed cont ent - neut r al . I d. Ther e was an al t er nat i ve channel

f or communi cat i on: t he l awn out si de t he Capi t ol .

I d. at *20.


9/24

9

I n a car ef ul anal ysi s, however , t he cour t concl uded t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f had a f ai r l y st r ong l i kel i hood of success on t he

mer i t s ( i d. at *21) of hi s argument t hat t he pol i cy was not

nar r owl y tai l or ed t o t he si gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est sunder l yi ng a per mi t r equi r ement . The cour t di scussed t he

government al i nt erest s ser ved by a permi t r equi r ement . Those

i ncl uded ensur i ng adequat e pol i ce r esour ces and managi ng demands

f or access t o t he Capi t ol f r om di f f er ent gr oups. I d. at *15.

The cour t r el i ed on t he t est i mony of Todd Tuschel , t he

Capi t ol Pol i ce capt ai n who suppl i ed an af f i davi t of f er ed by t he

st at e i n our case. I d. at *15- *17. The st at e her e di r ect s my

at t ent i on t o ot her mat er i al s est abl i shi ng t he l egi t i macy of t he

gover nment s i nt er est i n r egul at i ng event s at t he Capi t ol ,

i ncl udi ng a newspaper ar t i cl e f r om May, 2011 ( pr e- dat i ng Ki ssi ck)

and an af f i davi t of a Capi t ol t our gui de. Exhi bi t s G and H t o

st at e s br i ef . That af f i davi t was actual l y i nt r oduced i n t he

Ki ssi ck case.

The st at e ar gues t hat t her e i s a wel l - est abl i shed need t o

coor di nate uses of t he r otunda and al l ow t he enf orcement of a

per mi t t i ng system. Br i ef at 9. That i s sur el y t r ue. However ,

t hese sor t s of consi der at i ons wer e car ef ul l y eval uat ed by t hecour t i n Ki ssi ck. Al l t hi ngs consi der ed, t he cour t obser ved:

Despi t e t hi s evi dence, def endant s of f er ver y l i t t l e i n t heway of a nexus bet ween a st r i ct per mi t t i ng r equi r ement f orsmal l gr oups and t he si gni f i cant st at e i nt er est ofmai nt ai ni ng peace and or der i n t he Capi t ol . For exampl e,


10/24

10

t he Capi t ol pol i ce do not need a per mi t vi ol at i on t o ar r estand r emove i ndi vi dual t r oubl emaker s f r om t he bui l di ng -t hey can deal wi t h di sr upt i ve behavi or by enf or ci ng avar i et y of st at e st at ues and admi ni st r at i ve r egul at i onsgover ni ng boi st er ous, vi ol ent or abusi ve conduct . . .

I d. at *16.

The cour t expl ai ned t hat t he r eal probl em sought t o be

addr essed by t he st at e i s t hat of event part i ci pant s who become

di sr upt i ve. That pr obl em coul d be deal t wi t h by enf or ci ng t r ul y

nar r owl y- t ai l or ed, exi st i ng r ul es . . . I d. at *18. Whi l e a

cont ent - neut r al r est r i ct i on wi l l not be st r uck down si mpl y

because t her e i s some i magi nabl e al t er nat i ve t hat mi ght be l ess

bur densome on speech, t he cour t concl uded:

Here t he cur r ent permi t t i ng r equi r ement sweeps i n anenor mous amount of or di nar y act i vi t i es t hat ar e unl i kel y t opr esent any si gni f i cant di st ur bance i n t he Capi t ol . I t t husunnecessar i l y cr eat es a chi l l i ng ef f ect on t he speech of t hemaj or i t y of t he i ndi vi dual s who are wi l l i ng t o f ol l owr easonabl e conduct st andards and coexi st harmoni ousl y wi t ht our gr oups, per mi t t ed event s, and ot her l egi t i mat e st at eacti vi t i es. I n t hi s r espect, t he r est r i cti on seems t obur den subst ant i al l y mor e speech than i n necessar y t of ur t her t he gover nment s l egi t i mat e i nt er est .

I d. ( ci t at i on, f oot not e, and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Because t he evi dence al so est abl i shed t hat l ar ge event s can

be di sr upt i ve sol el y because of t hei r si ze, even t hough no

i ndi vi dual may be act i ng i n a di sorder l y manner , t he cour t f ound

t hat t he st at e di d:have a si gni f i cant i nt er est i n acqui r i ng an advance per mi tfo r every event t hat can r easonabl y expect t o at t r act l ar gecr owds. At t he same t i me, t he one- and f our - personper mi t t i ng r equi r ement s cur r ent l y i n pl ace ar e pl ai nl y nott ai l or ed t o addr ess t hat i nt er est .


11/24

11

I d. at *19.

The cour t s concl usi on on t hi s poi nt i s wor t h quot i ng at

l engt h, f or i t s el oquence of expr essi on, i t s car ef ul r easoni ng,

and i t s subst ant i al f oundat i on i n wel l - est abl i shed aut hor i t y:

Ultimately, the court concludes that as written, the permitting requirement draws in too much expressive

conduct in exchange for too little administrative benefit. It is, therefore, not narrowly tailored to serve a

significant governmental interest. This finding is consistent with the holdings of federal courts across the

country, which have virtually unanimously struck down permitting requirements for small groups. See,

e.g.,Cox v. City of Charleston, SC,416 F.3d 281, 285 (4th Cir.2005)([T]he unflinching application of

the Ordinance to groups as small as two or three renders it constitutionally infirm.); Am.-Arab Anti

Discrim. Committee v. City of Dearborn, 418 F.3d 600, 608 (6th Cir.2005) (Permit schemes and

advance notice requirements that potentially apply to small groups are nearly always overly broad and

lack narrow tailoring.);Douglas v. Brownell,88 F.3d 1511, 1524 (8th Cir.1996) (expressing concernabout the application of [a] permit requirement to groups of ten);Knowles v. Waco,462 F.3d 430, 436

(5th Cir.2006) ([O]rdinances requiring a permit for demonstrations by a handful of people are not

narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.);Marcavage v. City of Chi.,659 F.3d 626,

635 (7th Cir.2011)(noting the powerful consensus of courts finding permit requirements for groups of

ten and under to be either unconstitutional or constitutionally suspect).

*20As defendants appropriately point out, none of the above-cited cases apply to interior spaces, but the

Capitol rotunda is closer to an out-of-doors, traditional public forum in that it is a capacious gathering

space with a unique history as a place for government and public discourse, which admits for (indeed,

was designed for) a certain level of disturbance that would not be proper in a typical state office building

or even a typical state capitol. And, although its four wings are offices for many, most of this work is

sufficiently remote to be impacted by small groupsotherwise how do defendants explain the myriadevents and large groups regularly parading through and gathering for events in the Capitol rotunda and its

other public spaces. Moreover, the court relies on these cases not so much as a guide to the precise

numerical floor below which the state cannot require a permit, but rather for a sense of the broad judicial

consensus that pre-permitting schemes which limit speech in public places must serve more than just

scheduling or administrative functions.

Said another way: permits chill speech. Both the procedural hurdle of filling out and submitting a

written application, and the temporal hurdle of waiting for the permit to be granted may discourage

potential speakers.Grossman v. City of Portland,33 F.3d 1200, 1206 (9th Cir.1994).

As a matter of principle a requirement of registration in order to make a public speech would seem

generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly.

...

... Even if the issuance of permits by the mayors office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly

and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic

departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition.
http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_285http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_285http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_285http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_285http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1996154752&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1524http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1996154752&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1524http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1996154752&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1524http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1996154752&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1524http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994180907&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1206http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994180907&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1206http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994180907&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1206http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994180907&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1206http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1994180907&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1206http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2026264663&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_635http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2009781563&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_436http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1996154752&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_1524http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007137399&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_608http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_285


12/24

12

Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 16466, 122 S.Ct. 2080,

153 L.Ed.2d 205 (2002)(quotingThomas v. Collins,323 U.S. 516, 53940, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430

(1945)). The extraordinary chilling effect of permits explains why courts are careful to require that if the

legislative body determines that a permit requirement is absolutely necessary to effectuate [its] relevant

goals, it should tailor that requirement to ensure that it does not burden small gatherings posing no threat

to the safety, order, and accessibility of [the forum].Cox v. City of Charleston, SC,416 F.3d at 287.

Id. at *19-*20.

Havi ng concl uded t hat t he permi t r equi r ement f or event s

i nvol vi ng f ew par t i ci pant s was unconst i t ut i onal , t he cour t had t o

deci de how t o f ashi on a pr el i mi nar y r emedy. I t observed t hat

i mport ant concerns off eder al i sm and separ at i on of power s

or di nar i l y woul d f avor sever i ng t he par t of a l aw det er mi ned t o

be unconst i t ut i onal , but t hat woul d be pr obl emat i c her e where t he

pr ovi si on at i ssue was an i nt egr al par t of t he r ul e. The cour t

concl uded:

*22Defendants failure to arrive at an appropriate numerical floor for requiring smaller groups to

obtain a permit could be grounds to enjoin enforcement of the entire Policy until the Department arrives

at an appropriate number. See Cox v. City of Charleston, 416 F.3d at 28687 (finding a permitting

ordinance facially unconstitutional, but declining to announce a numerical floor below which a permit

requirement cannot apply). This is not, however, a final judgment of facial unconstitutionality, and

defendants have established that some threshold is appropriate. Accordingly, the court will enjoindefendants from requiring permitting for events in the Capitol rotunda of 20 persons or less. This

preliminary number attempts to protect the fundamental rights of plaintiff and others like him to freely

assemble and engage in speech while permitting defendants the ability to manage the competing demands

on the rotunda and quickly call on additional police officers if necessary.

I d. at *22.

I n sum, Ki ssi ck est abl i shed t hat t he rul e Mr . Cr ut e was

accused of vi ol at i ng i s unconst i t ut i onal . I t i s not nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o t he l egi t i mat e st at e i nt er est of pr eser vi ng or der i n

t he Capi t ol . That l egi t i mat e i nt er est can be adequat el y

addr essed by appl i cat i on of a nar r owl y- t ai l or ed st at ut e or
http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_287http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_287http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_287http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_287http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_286http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_286http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_286http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_286http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2006992542&pubNum=506&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)#co_pp_sp_506_287http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1945116444&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2002373344&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.UserEnteredCitation)


13/24

13

or di nance ( e. g. , di sor der l y conduct ) t o i ndi vi dual of f ender s.

Fur t her , because l ar ger gr oups can be di sr upt i ve si mpl y because

of t hei r si ze, a per mi t r equi r ement wi t h a r easonabl e numer i cal

f l oor on t he number of ant i ci pat ed par t i ci pant s woul d passconst i t ut i onal must er .

4. Whet her t he st at e chose t o f ol l ow t he f eder al cour ti nj unct i on i s no moment as concer ns t he f aci al

consti t ut i onal i t y of t he r ul e.

What was bef or e the cour t i n Ki ss i ck was a r equest f or a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. That i s an equi t abl e r emedy t hat i s, by

i t s nat ur e, t empor ar y. The cour t assesses t he l i kel i hood of

success and t hen bal ances t he r espect i ve har ms t o t he par t i es of

gr ant i ng or not gr ant i ng an i nj unct i on pendent e l i t e.

One sol ut i on avai l abl e t o t he Ki ssi ck cour t was si mpl y t o

enj oi n enf or cement of t he pol i cy al t oget her , because t he r ul e di d

not pr ovi de a numer i cal f l oor . The cour t consi der ed t hat , and

not ed t hat t hat i s exact l y what anot her cour t f aci ng a si mi l ar

i ssue di d. Ki ssi ck, i d. at *22, ci t i ng Cox v. Ci t y of

Char l est on, SC 416 F. 3d 281, 286- 7 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) .

However , t he cour t i n Ki ssi ck took a di f f er ent appr oach.

Gi ven t he equi t abl e nat ur e of t he pr el i mi nar y pr oceedi ng, t he

cour t at t empt ed t o st r i ke a bal ance t hat woul d pr ot ect t he r i ght s


14/24

14

of per sons l i ke Mr . Ki ssi ck t o assembl e and speak whi l e al so

acknowl edgi ng t he l egi t i macy of t he st ate s need t o manage

demands on t he r ot unda and t o pr eserve or der . Accor di ngl y, i t

enj oi ned enf or cement of t he r ul e t o gr oups ant i ci pat ed t o exceedt went y.

For our pur poses, t he i mpor t of Ki ssi ck i s cl ear : t he r ul e

i s unconst i t ut i onal on i t s f ace. I f amended t o pr ovi de a

r easonabl e numer i cal f l oor , t hat woul d sol ve t he const i t ut i onal

pr obl em. At t he t i me Mr . Cr ut e was ci t ed, t he r ul e was not so

amended. I t remai ned f aci al l y unconst i t ut i onal .

We need go no f ur t her . An unconst i t ut i onal l aw i s a l egal

non- ent i t y:

An unconst i t ut i onal act of t he l egi sl at ur e i s not a l aw.I t conf er s no r i ght s, i mposes no penal t y, af f or ds nopr ot ect i on, i s not oper at i ve, and i n l egal cont empl at i on hasno exi st ence.

G. Hei l eman Br ewi ng Co. v. Ci t y of LaCr osse, 105 Wi s. 2d 152, 161( Ct . App. 1981) , quot i ng J ohn F. J el ke Co. v. Beck, 208 Wi s. 650,661 ( 1932) .

An unconst i t ut i onal l aw i s voi d, and i s as no l aw. Anof f ense cr eat ed by i t i s not a cr i me. A convi ct i on under i ti s not mer el y er r oneous, but i s i l l egal and voi d, and cannotbe a l egal cause of i mpr i sonment .

Ex Par t e Si ebol d, 100 U. S. 371, 376- 377 ( 1879) .

The st at e ar gues t hat because i t f ol l owed t he i nj unct i on and

di d not enf or ce t he r ul e wi t h r espect t o gr oups of t went y or


15/24

15

f ewer , t he r ul e sur vi ves const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny. I r espectf ul l y

di sagr ee.

Fi r st , whi l e I r espect t he Ki ssi ck cour t s f ashi oni ng ofi nt er i m equi t abl e r el i ef , I do not get t o t he quest i on of an

i nt er i m r emedy her e. Our case i s not about i nj unct i ve r el i ef .

I t i s about t he st at e s seeki ng t o exact a penal t y f r om a ci t i zen

who was exerci si ng hi s r i ght t o f r ee speech and assembl y. The

r ul e he st ands accused of vi ol at i ng i s unconst i t ut i onal on i t s

f ace. The r ul e i s voi d; t he ci t at i on must be di smi ssed. Ther e

i s not hi ng mor e t o be deci ded.

Second, I r espect f ul l y rej ect t he st at e s vi ew t hat t he r ul e

somehow changed af t er Ki ssi ck - - t he r egul at i ons at i ssue i n

t hi s case ar e t he r egul at i ons as i nt er pr et ed by t he di st r i ct

cour t s deci si on. Br i ef at 1, emphasi s i n or i gi nal . That

st at ement does not cor r ect l y char act er i ze t he Ki ssi ck cour t s

r ul i ng. The cour t di d not i nt er pr et t he r egul at i on. I ndeed,

t her e was not hi ng t o i nt er pr et . The r ul e cl ear l y appl i ed t o ver y

smal l gr oups as wel l as l ar ge ones. Ther ef or e i t was

unconst i t ut i onal , per i od.

The Ki ssi ck cour t had no power t o make or r e- make anadmi ni st r at i ve r ul e. I t di d not do so. The Ki ssi ck cour t s

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on was a way t o bal ance, t empor ar i l y, t he

compet i ng i nt er est s of t he par t i es. The cour t s rul i ng must be


16/24

16

r espect ed, but i t i s not sel f - execut i ng. The st at e never amended

t he r ul e t o conf or m t o t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. I f t he st at e

wi shed to penal i ze ci t i zens f or speaki ng and assembl i ng wi t hout a

per mi t , i t was r equi r ed t o do so under a r ul e t hat i sconsti t ut i onal .

Thi r d, i t i s wor t h not i ng t hat Capt ai n Tuschel s af f i davi t

does not est abl i sh t hat t he Capi t ol Pol i ce di d i n f act compl y

wi t h t he i nj unct i on. The af f i davi t est abl i shes t hat t he pol i ce

i ssued ci t at i ons t o peopl e when t he number of par t i ci pant s

exceeded t he t went y- person t hr eshol d, r egardl ess of what was

ant i ci pat ed.

Yet , t hat i s not what t he Ki ssi ck cour t sai d. The cour t

sai d t he rul e coul d not be appl i ed t o gat her i ngs t hat ar e

ant i ci pat ed t o at t r act t went y or f ewer per sons. I d. at *22

( emphasi s added) . Whi l e t hat may seem t o be a t echni cal

di st i nct i on, i t i s not . A per son mi ght par t i ci pat e i n a

gat her i ng, bel i evi ng i n good f ai t h t hat i t woul d not at t r act

t went y peopl e. When t he t went y- f i r st person happened t o come by

and j oi n i n, t he r ul e as i nt er pr et ed by t he Capi t ol Pol i ce woul d

be vi ol ated and everyone i n t he gr oup woul d be subj ect t o

penal t y. That i s cl ear l y not what t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i oncont empl at ed i n pr ohi bi t i ng enf or cement of t he rul e when a

gat her i ng was ant i ci pat ed t o at t r act t went y or f ewer per sons.


17/24

17

Fi nal l y, t her e i s a f undament al pr obl em wi t h t he st at e s

posi t i on t hat t he r ul e can sur vi ve as l ong as t he st at e f ol l ows

i t s i nt er pr et at i on of t he f eder al cour t s pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on.I t i s t hi s: peopl e shoul d be abl e t o know, by readi ng t he l aw,

what l i mi t s t he st at e has set on t hei r r i ght t o f r ee expr essi on,

and whether t hei r conduct wi l l be consi der ed unl awf ul and subj ect

t o penal t y. Peopl e shoul d not have t o wonder how t he agency

char ged wi t h enf or ci ng t he r ul es wi l l deci de t o i nt er pr et or

appl y t hem.

The r ul e under whi ch Mr . Ki ssi ck was char ged was an

emer gency r ul e. I f t he st at e want ed t o enf or ce a r ul e

consi st ent wi t h t he Ki ssi ck pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, i t coul d have

amended i t by another emergency r ul e. Ki ss i ck was deci ded J ul y

8, 2013. By J ul y 24, when Mr . Cr ut e was t i cket ed, t he emergency

r ul e had not been amended. The i nt erpr et i ve Access Pol i cy had

not been amended. The ul t i mate set t l ement i n Ki ss i ck t ook a

di f f er ent appr oach t o t he per mi t t i ng r equi r ement al t oget her .

J . Ol son af f i davi t , J anuary 2, 2014, and at t ached mat er i al s.

As t he cour t sai d i n Ki ssi ck, per mi t s have an ext r aor di nar y

chi l l i ng ef f ect on speech and assembl y. I d. at *20: Bot h t hepr ocedur al hur dl e of f i l l i ng out and submi t t i ng a wr i t t en

appl i cat i on, and t he t empor al hur dl e of wai t i ng f or t he per mi t t o


18/24

18

be gr ant ed may di scour age pot ent i al speaker s. I d. ( ci t at i on and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . To t hese, we shoul d not add

t he even more basi c hur dl e of havi ng t o guess whether a permi t

wi l l be r equi r ed at al l .

As of J ul y 24, 2013, where woul d a person, wi shi ng t o speak

and assembl e l awf ul l y, go t o f i nd out i f a per mi t was r equi r ed?

The r ul e i t sel f had no f l oor , and was t her ef or e unconst i t ut i onal .

The i nt er pret i ve Access Pol i cy set t he f l oor at f our

par t i ci pant s, whi ch was l i kewi se unconst i t ut i onal . The st at e now

asser t s i t i nt ended t o f ol l ow Ki ssi ck, but , i n f act as we have

seen, i t di d not . Even now, t he st at e has ar gued i n anot her of

t he si nger cases t hat t he rul e was const i t ut i onal even wi t hout

t he l i mi t at i on of t he Ki ssi ck i nj unct i on. See f n. 4 at p. 6

above.

The conf usi on and uncer t ai nty spawned by t he st at e s f ai l ure

t o enact a cl ear r ul e compl yi ng wi t h t he Fi r st Amendment i s

i l l ust r at ed i n a compel l i ng exampl e of f er ed at or al ar gument by

counsel f or Mr . Cr ut e:

Let ' s say I ' m a member of t he Bad Ri ver Band of Nat i veAmer i cans up near Lake Super i or i n t he vi ci ni t y of what ' s pl annedt o be a new mi ne, and I ' m ver y concer ned about t he pot ent i al

pol l ut i on of t he wat er s i n our l i t t l e ar ea of t r i bal l and. And Iget t oget her t wo mi ni vans f ul l of ot her Nat i ve Amer i cans, and wewant t o go down t o t he Capi t ol and have a t wel ve- persondemonst r at i on i n f avor of pr ot ect i ng our t r i bal l ands i n t heCapi t ol r ot unda. And I want t o f i gur e out whet her I ' m goi ng t oneed a permi t f or my t wel ve- person demonst r at i on or not .


19/24

19

And her e' s t he at t i t ude t hat I t ake goi ng i n. I f I ' m goi ngt o have t o get a per mi t , I am not goi ng t o do i t , because I don' twant t o assume t he r esponsi bi l i t i es, i ncl udi ng t he f i nanci alr esponsi bi l i t i es t al ked about i n t he Access Pol i ci es, t hat comewi t h si gni ng a per mi t , and I don' t want t o repr esent mysel f asr esponsi bl e f or t he behavi or of t hese ot her peopl e t hat ar e goi ng

wi t h me. So I ' m happy t o go down and demonst r at e wi t h my gr oupof t wel ve i f I don' t have t o get a per mi t . But i f I have t o geta per mi t , I ' m not goi ng t o go.

So what do I do? I l ook on t he i nt er net , and I see what Ican f i nd that governs who needs a permi t t o demonst r ate i n t heCapi t ol . And I f i nd t he Wi sconsi n Admi ni st r at i ve Codepr ovi si ons, i ncl udi ng t he one at i ssue her e, t hat say you need aper mi t f or any demonst r at i on at al l , even a gr oup . . . as smal las t wo peopl e. So i t l ooks l i ke I need a per mi t , so I deci de I ' mnot goi ng t o go.

But somebody says, wel l , you shoul d l ook beyond t he

Admi ni st r at i ve Code. So I l ook at t he Access Pol i ci es, whi ch ar eal so avai l abl e onl i ne. And t he Access Pol i ci es say you need aper mi t f or a gr oup as smal l as f our . So I deci de not t o go.

And somebody says, wel l , I hear d t hat t here was apr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. And I say, okay, I can l ook t hat up.And I say, wel l , her e, t hey' r e enj oi ned f r om enf or ci ng t hi sagai nst peopl e who ar e goi ng t o have a event t hat ' s ant i ci pat edt o be l ess than 20. Ther e' s a f eder al cour t order t hat prohi bi t senf or cement agai nst an event ant i ci pat ed t o be l ess t han 20. Soyou can go.

But t hen somebody el se says, wel l , wai t a second, I hear dt hat ' s not what ' s goi ng on i n t he Capi t ol . Even i f youant i ci pat e t hat you' r e j ust goi ng t o have t he t wel ve peopl eyou' r e t aki ng down i n your t wo mi ni vans, i f you' r e i n t hatCapi t ol r ot unda, and you at t r act sympat hi zers t o t he poi nt wher eyour gat her i ng get s t o be 21, t hey can ci t e you al l f or nothavi ng a per mi t . And i t ' s t r ue t hat t hey may war n you, but i fyou' ve got st ubborn peopl e who ar e not goi ng t o l eave when t heyget t hat warni ng, you' r e goi ng t o have haul ed peopl e down t heret o get ci t ed as par t of a gat her i ng t hat i s pr ot ect ed by thi sf eder al pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, and t hey' r e goi ng t o be ci t edanyway. I t ' s pr ot ect ed because i t was ant i ci pat ed t o be l esst han 20, but you' r e goi ng to be ci t ed anyway.

So t hen I deci de, wel l , maybe I ' m not goi ng t o go, but Iwant t o ask t he Capi t ol Pol i ce what t hey' r e doi ng. So I cal ll ong di st ance t o Madi son. I t al k t o somebody i n t he Capi t olPol i ce. And I say, what ar e you doi ng? And t hey say, wel l ,we' r e not exact l y f ol l owi ng t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, becausewe never ask anybody how bi g t hei r gather i ng was ant i ci pated t obe. We j ust count up t o 20 peopl e, and t hen we decl are i t


20/24

20

unconst i t ut i onal when i t get s to 21. We decl ar e i t an unl awf ulassembl y when i t gets t o 21.

So I say, wel l , maybe we can al l t ake si gns t hat say,"pl ease don' t j oi n our gat her i ng, " because i f we get over 20peopl e, we' r e al l i n hot wat er .

But t hen I say t o t he Capi t ol Pol i ce, you know, t hat may bet he way you' r e doi ng t hi s t oday, but how do I know you' r e goi ngt o be doi ng i t t hat way next week when I get my t wo mi ni vans ofNat i ve Amer i cans down t here? I s t hi s wr i t t en down anywhere? Andhe says, "no. "

And I say, wel l , you di d emer gency r ul es i n Apr i l . I ft her e' s anythi ng t hat const i t ut es an emer gency, i t woul d seem t ome t o be a f eder al cour t deci si on t hat your Admi ni st r at i ve Codepr ovi si ons ar e unconst i t ut i onal , most l i kel y, but you haven' tdone any emer gency modi f i cat i ons t o these r ul es t o tel l me thateven i f I keep my gat her i ng under 20, I ' l l be saf e f r om ar r est .

You coul d i ssue Access Pol i ci es wi t hout any r ed t ape at al l , asyou di d i n Apr i l . And you haven' t r ei ssued your Access Pol i ci est o t el l me t hat I ' l l be saf e i f I keep my gr oup t o under 20. Al lI ' ve got i s wor d of mout h on what your day t o day pr act i ce i s.I ' m sor r y, I cannot t ake t he r i sk of br i ngi ng my Nat i ve Amer i cansdown t o pr ot est wat er pol l ut i on.

That . . . i s a per f ect exampl e of chi l l ed speech, andt hat ' s what our const i t ut i onal j ur i spr udence t hat decl ar es t hesepr ovi si ons unconst i t ut i onal on t hei r f ace i s desi gned t o pr event .

Tr anscr i pt of or al ar gument , J anuar y 23, 2014, pgs. 25- 29.

I ndeed.

For t hese r easons, t he st at e s asser t i on t hat i t f ol l owed

i t s under st andi ng of t he Ki ssi ck cour t s pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

does not change t he f act t hat t he r ul e i s on i t s f ace

unconst i t ut i onal and voi d, and i t f ur ni shes no l egal basi s t o

exact a penal t y f r om Mr . Cr ut e f or speaki ng and assembl i ng.


21/24

21

5. The st at e s ar gument s t hat t he r ul e does not provi deunf et t er ed di scr et i on and i s not over br oad, mi ss t he mar k.

Fi nal l y, t he st at e makes t wo ar gument s t hatdo not meet t he

poi nt of Mr . Cr ut e s chal l enge.

Fi r st , t he st at e not es t hat t he Ki ssi ck cour t r ej ected a

chal l enge based on t he cl ai m t hat t he r ul e pr ovi ded unf et t er ed

di scr et i on t o t he Capi t ol pol i ce. That i s tr ue, but i t has

l i t t l e t o do wi t h t he chal l enge pr esent ed her e. Our case

pr esent s a f ocused argument under one r equi r ement of t he t i me,

pl ace, and manner t est : t hat t he r ul e be nar r owl y- t ai l or ed. That

i s di f f er ent f r om t he quest i on whet her t he r ul e gave unf et t er ed

di scr et i on t o t he Capi t ol pol i ce.

The Ki ssi ck cour t agreed wi t h t he st at e t hat t he pol i cy di d

not gr ant unf et t er ed di scret i on t o t he pol i ce. I t st i l l f ound t he

pol i cy unconst i t ut i onal under t he t i me, pl ace, and manner t est .

Second, t he st at e ar gues t hat t he per mi t r equi r ement i s not

over br oad because i t has a l i mi t i ng const r uct i on avai l abl e t o

nar r ow t he st at ut e and t her ef or e t he r ul e does not r each asubst ant i al amount of const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct .

Br i ef at 12- 15.


22/24

22

However , t he r ul e here does not admi t of any l i mi t i ng

const r uct i on. I t cont ai ns no l anguage t hat coul d be const r ued t o

l i mi t i t s appl i cat i on. I t i s not f or the cour t s t o suppl y outof whol e cl ot h what t he dr af t er of t he r ul e f ai l ed t o wr i t e.

The r el at ed quest i on t he amount of const i t ut i onal l y-

pr ot ect ed conduct r ef l ect s an under st andi ng of t he Ki ssi ck

deci si on di f f er ent f r om mi ne. I n Ki ssi ck, t he cour t eval uat ed

sever al const i t ut i onal chal l enges t o t he access pol i cy, i ncl udi ng

one based on overbr eadt h and vagueness. That speci f i c chal l enge

asser t ed t hat t he wor ds r al l y and event wer e

unconst i t ut i onal l y vague and over br oad. The Ki ssi ck cour t

r ej ect ed t hat chal l enge, observi ng among ot her t hi ngs t hat bef or e

someone can be puni shed under t he pol i cy, t he pol i ce must gi ve

not i ce that t he event has been decl ared unl awf ul and a

par t i ci pant has t he oppor t uni t y t o wi t hdr aw. The cour t concl uded

t heref ore t hat t he permi t scheme di d not by r eason of vagueness,

r each a subst ant i al amount of const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed

conduct. I d. at *12. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)

That i s t r ue, but i t i s a di st i nct l y di f f er ent i ssue f r om

t he chal l enge made by Mr . Cr ut e. Mr . Cr ut e asser t s t hat t hepol i cy i s not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o a si gni f i cant gover nment

i nt er est under t he t i me, pl ace, and manner t est . That i s t he

basi s on whi ch t he Ki ss i ck cour t f ound t he per mi t r equi r ement


23/24

23

unconst i t ut i onal . I n ot her wor ds, t he f act t hat t he pol i cy may

not be unconst i t ut i onal l y vague does not mean t hat t he r ul e meet s

t he nar r owt ai l or i ng t est under t he t i me, pl ace, and manner

pr i nci pl e. That i s what t he cour t sai d i n Ki ssi ck.

I t i s al so wor t h not i ng t hat t he Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect s

expr essi on, not j ust t he r i ght t o be f r ee f r om puni shment f or

expr essi on. As st at ed i n Mr . Cr ut e s r epl y br i ef at 19:

I f al l t he Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect ed wer e t he r i ght t o bef r ee f r om puni shment f or expr essi on, t hi s woul d be a goodar gument , but t he Fi r st Amendment al so pr ot ect s t he r i ght t o

expr essi on i t sel f . A per son gi ven not i ce t hat an event i sunper mi t t ed can onl y escape puni shment by cur t ai l i ng hi s orher expr essi ve act i vi t y and t hat coer ci on, i n and of i t sel f ,i s a vi ol at i on of Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. ( f oot not eomi t t ed) .

Cont r ar y t o t he st at e s posi t i on, t he Ki ssi ck cour t cl ear l y

f ound t hat because the rul e pr ovi ded no numer i cal f l oor , i t di d

r each a subst ant i al amount of const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct :

Here, t he permi t t i ng r equi r ement sweeps i n an enormousamount of act i vi t i es t hat ar e unl i kel y t o pr esent asi gni f i cant di st ur bance i n t he Capi t ol .

I d. at *18.

CONCLUSION

The r ul e Mr . Cr ute i s char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng i s not

nar r owl y- t ai l or ed t o t he l egi t i mat e gover nment al i nt er est s i t

seeks t o pr omot e. I t i s not a val i d t i me, pl ace, and manner

r equi r ement . I t i s unconst i t ut i onal on i t s f ace. The ci t at i on

must be, and i t her eby i s, di smi ssed.


24/24

24

Thi s i s a f i nal or der f or pur poses of appeal .

Dat ed: Febr uar y _____, 2014.

BY THE COURT

_______________________________J ohn W. Mar ksonCi r cui t Cour t J udge

cc: AAG Rebecca R. Wei seAt t or ney J ef f Scot t Ol son

Documents

Dane County Circuit Court Dismissal in Wisconsin v Crute 020514