The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Ban on Religious Proselytizing at El Paso Art & Farmers Market
The market was conducted on city streets, managed by the city, and open to the public.
From Denton v. City of El Paso, decided yesterday (correctly, I think) by Judge Stephen A. Higginson and joined by Judges Jacques Wiener and Jennifer Walker Elrod:
Ryan Denton is an evangelical Christian, and proselytizing is a tenet of his faith. When he arrived at the El Paso Art and Farmers Market to proselytize, City officials told Denton that City policy prohibited proselytizing within the Market's perimeter….
Established in 2011, the El Paso Art and Farmers Market … is a year-round, weekly outdoor event managed by the City of El Paso through its Museum and Cultural Affairs Department ("MCAD"). Farmers and merchants sell their wares from booths that they obtain through an application process with MCAD. The Market takes place on public streets and does not require a ticket for entry….
Whether the restriction on speech—here, the City's policy—is content based or content neutral turns on the scope and nature of the policy, which the parties dispute. Denton argues that the City's policy is to prohibit all religious proselytizing within the Market's perimeter. The City argues that its policy is to prohibit disruptive conduct within the Market's perimeter.
The district court agreed with the City, finding that the City's policy was not a categorical ban on proselytizing but rather that "the policy prevents only two things: 1) setting up at a fixed location without obtaining advance permission from MCAD and 2) calling out to passersby." Our review of the record, however, leaves us with the "definite and firm conviction" that the district court committed clear error in its factual finding as to the scope and nature of the City's policy.
According to the Statement of Undisputed Facts that the parties submitted to the district court, the City does not dispute that "El Paso rules list 'fundraising,' 'political campaigning,' and 'religious proselytizing' as First Amendment activities that are barred from the Market." The City, therefore, categorically disallows any proselytizing in the Market.
Indeed, the City's pre-litigation correspondence with Denton confirms this categorical exclusion. In a letter to Denton, the City stated that it "does not allow activities such as protesting, campaigning, lobbying, proselytizing, or any other activity that could cause a disruption of performances, vending, and/or operations, or pose a potential safety issue." Although the City asserts that its policy is merely one that prevents disruptive conduct, the policy is actually a categorical ban on proselytizing. As characterized by the City, the policy prohibits all proselytizing on the assumption that it will be disruptive, rather than prohibits conduct because it is disruptive.
Given the City's characterization of its policy in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and its letter to Denton, the district court clearly erred in finding that the City's policy is merely one that prohibits potentially disruptive speech. Accordingly, we find that the City's policy is content based because it "applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed"—here pro-religious speech. Moreover, the City's policy is content based on its face because it "defin[es] regulated speech by particular subject matter"—religious proselytization. The City's "innocuous justification" of its policy—that it is merely trying to prevent disruptive speakers in the Market—does not save the policy. When a restriction is content based on its face, the government's purpose is irrelevant….
Because its policy is content based, El Paso "must show that its [restriction] is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Narrow tailoring requires that the regulation be the least restrictive means available to the government. El Paso fails to make this showing.
It is unclear whether the City has asserted a compelling government interest. We need not decide this issue because, even assuming that it did assert a compelling government interest, a prior restraint of speech based on a viewpoint is unlikely to be the least restrictive means of regulation available.
Courts disfavor wholesale bans on types of expression protected by the First Amendment, and such bans are usually invalidated on the ground that they clearly fail a "least restrictive means" analysis. [Citations omitted.-EV] For that reason, the City's policy is likely not narrowly tailored. In sum, Denton has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his free speech claim.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The superstitious and annoying have rights, too.
Still lathering the rubes, eh, Rev?
We agree you do have rights, Artie.
It appears different people lather the rubes in different ways.
The key point is that these rubes are easily lathered.
Or perhaps the Rathers are easily lubed.
More accurately, the power hungry have no right to silence people to the cheers of their supporters.
This is reminiscent of a case brought by Jews for Jesus against Los Angeles International Airport in the 80’s. Jews for Jesus won in the trial court, Ninth Circuit and 9-0 in SCOTUS. (General Counsel Jay Sekulow argued.)
When I flew back then, LAX was filled with various religious folks asking for donations.
Airplane! parodied that situation with a seen where Ted Stryker punches the guy seeking the donation for religious charities.
I think he punched a Krishna who was talking to him… They were pretty common at the time.
I know there isn’t a “look, you all can speak, but there is a time and place for everything and this is really annoying” exception to the first amendment, but cases like that makes me think that sometimes there should be.
Ha ha ha, yes.
At the same time, it’ll probably work itself out due to societal/cultural forces (aforementioned airport issue has gone away on its own). And on balance, I doubt we’d *really* prefer that more restrictions be allowed. Slippery slope / unintended consequences and all that.
Almost like you should be able to specify a time and place restriction to speech instead of a categorical ban on certain types of speech based on conduct? Yup, that’s a good idea.