15-10778-C
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DAVID BENOIT MECH, d/b/a THE HAPPY/FUN MATH TUTOR,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
vs.
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,
Defendant/ Appellee.
CASE NO: 15-10778-C
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DC Case Number: 13-cv-80437
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
James K. Green, Esq. JAMES K. GREEN, P.A. Suite 1650, Esperante 222 Lakeview A venue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-2029 Facsimile: (561) 655-1357 Florida Bar No: 229466 j [email protected]
Attorneys for Appellant
Lawrence G. Walters, Esq. WALTERS LAW GROUP 195 W. Pine Ave Longwood, FL 327 50 Telephone:800.530.8137 Facsimile: 407.774.6151 [email protected]
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 1 of 13
AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellant, David Benoit Mech, d/b/a The Happy/Fun Math Tutor,
certifies and adopts the lists of the trial judge(s), all attorneys, persons,
associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations (noted with its
stock symbol if publicly listed) that have an interest in the outcome of the
particular case on appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,
and parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a
party, included in Appellant's Certificate oflnterested Persons filed on April
10, 2015, Appellee's Certificate ofinterested Persons initially filed on June
4, 2015.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Amended Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement .................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii
Table of Citations ............................................................................................... .iii-iv
Argument .............................................................................................................. 1-7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 8
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 9
11
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 2 of 13
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Bd. of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 235 (2000) ............................................................................... 6
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Call. of the Law v. Martinez,
561 U.S. 661 (1982) ....................................................................................... 5
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. at 758 ............................................................................................ 5,6
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806 (1985) ............................................................................. 5
Forsyth County, Ga., v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 133 (1992) .............................................................................. 6
Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 u.s. 298 (1974) ...................................................................................... 4
Perry Ed. Ass 'n v. Perry Local Educators's Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983) ..................................................................................... 4,5
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 468 (2009) .............................................................................. 7
Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 u.s. 844, 870-71 (1997) ......................................................................... 6
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 154-155 (1969) ....................................................................... 6
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (20 11) .............................................................................. 7
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) ............................................................................. 1,5,8
iii
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 3 of 13
Internet link:
https:/ /www .google.com/search?g=banners+on+school+fence&es sm= 122&t bm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa= X&ved=OCDwQsARgFQo TCJ aZ8K vh08 cCFdOyHgodXeQNyQ ...... ........ .. ...... ................ .......................... ........................ .... 2
IV
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 4 of 13
I. QUESTION PRESENTED
On August 28, 2015, the Court entered the following order:
The court directs the parties in this case to file simultaneous supplemental briefs to address the impact on this case of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (20 15).
II. ARGUMENT
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
2239 (2015), confirms that Mech's banner conveys private speech in a limited
public forum or nonpublic forum and is therefore protected by the First
Amendment from censorship through unbridled discretion.
Walker applied to specialty license plates the well-established rule that the
freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment limits government power over
private speech on government property, but does not impose any limits on
government speech. The Court concluded that specialty automobile license plates
conveyed government speech rather than private speech for several reasons.
First, the Court inquired into the history of speech displayed on automobile
license plates, concluding that "the history of license plates shows that, insofar as
license plates have conveyed more than state names and vehicle identification
numbers, they long have communicated messages from the States." Id. at 2248.
By contrast, neither evidence in the record below nor common practice suggest that
business advertising banners hung from school fences have "long communicated"
1
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 5 of 13
government messages. To the contrary, they are self-evidently the expression of
the identified business. A Google search for <banners on school fence> produces a
link entitled "Images for banners on school fence" '
https://www.google.com/search?q=banners+on+school+fence&es_sm=122&tbm=i
sch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa= X&ved=OCDwQsARqFQoTCJ aZSK vh08cCF dOyH
godXeQNyQ (last visited August 31, 20 15) with dozens of advertising banners that
convey no government message. The record below contains no banners reflecting
any governmental messages. This case does not involve governmental speech.
Second and crucially, the Court noted that "[t]he governmental nature of
automobile license plates is clear from their faces" since they contain the name of
the state and must be displayed on every vehicle. 135 S. Ct. at 2248. Because
"Texas license plates are, essentially, government IDs" whose display is required
by the state, the reasonable observer understands their message to be government
speech. Id. at 2249. Thus, license plates are government speech that endorses the
plate's message; as the Court noted, a private speaker can display his message "in
larger letters on a bumper sticker right next to the plate." Id. By contrast, the
advertising banners at issue in no way serve as government IDs. They identify the
private speaker; they convey the private speaker's identity and contact information;
their location value lies in their unique ability to reach the relevant target audience.
Although each contains the school initials and the phrase "Partner in Excellence,"
2
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 6 of 13
Appellee offered no evidence to suggest it ever conducted any assessment into the
quality of goods or services provided, much less that in doing so, it screened
potential partners for excellent rather than above average, average, or below
average serv1ces. In sum, nothing about the banners conveys the appearance -
much less the reality - of government speech. Simply stated, they are private
advertisements on a government fence.
Third, the Court observed that Texas controlled the minutiae of its
mandatory government ID license plate, including "design, typeface, color, and
alphanumeric pattern," and by doing so on a plate that prominently features the
state's name but no driver/owner information, "allows Texas to choose how to
present itself' to the public. Id. at 2249. Again, the contrast is evident. Although
Appellee preapproves banners to determine whether they fall within the formal
requirements of its policy, it submitted no evidence to suggest that it does so to
"present itself' or its message to the public. The banner contains the website
address (URL) and telephone number for the Happy/Fun Math Tutor but no school
contact information, and by its terms invites the reader to do business with the
advertiser. See Doc. 48-4, Attachment 2, at 27 (Approved Proofs of Plaintiffs
Math Tutoring Banners that Were Removed by the Defendants (Exhibit D):
3
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 7 of 13
® T~e Happy/Fun Mat~ Tutor 561.459.2058
www. HappyFunMathTutor.com
OMS Partner in Excellence ·- .. ... _____ .., .. ·--· .... _ ......... -.. .. --.. ..-. ··- ·--· · - - .... f'4 < ......
@ ne Happy/Fun Mat~ Tutor 561.459.2058
www.HappyFunMathTutor.com
SRCHS Partner in Excellence
Put simply, the banners are advertising banners, and as such, are private speech. 1
In sum, advertising banners such as Mech's are not "government-mandated,
government-controlled, and government-issued Ids that have traditionally been
used as a medium for government speech." 135 S. Ct. at 2249. Rather, they are
private speech on government property, and as such remain subject to forum
analysis, akin to advertisements on public buses, Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418
U.S. 298 (1974), or a school's internal mail system, Perry Ed. Ass 'n v. Perry Local
Educators Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983). To be precise, by opening the fences to
"partners" who wish to place advertisements, the school has either created a
1 Compare Mech's advertising banners with other, non-school-related advertising banners in fn. 3 infra.
4
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 8 of 13
limited public forum or a nonpublic forum, with identical First Amendment
constraints - the government may establish reasonable restrictions consistent with
the purpose of the forum (here advertising, with a prohibition against alcohol and
tobacco) as long as they are viewpoint neutral, but may not lodge unbridled
discretion in officials over the content of the banners.2
The school's banner licensing program facially violates the First
Amendment because it grants school officials unbridled discretion in determining
which private speech to permit or reject, as shown by the school's initial reliance
on the amorphous concept of community values. The Court has consistently
required licensing statutes regulating speech to include clear guidelines to ensure
that officials do not grant or deny permits in an ad hoc or discriminatory fashion.
In City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988), the
Court stated:
2 Although Walker recognizes four forum classes -traditional, designated, limited, and nonpublic - the Court has not been consistent in its labeling, often identifying only three, but sometimes labeling the three as traditional, designated, and limited purpose, see Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Col!. of the Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (1982), while at other times labeling the three as traditional, designated, and nonpublic. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators Ass 'n, 460 U.S. at 45-7; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985) ("control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral."). But the Court consistently has applied identical standards in assessing speech restrictions on what it sometimes calls limited purpose public forums and at other times calls nonpublic forums, rigorously prohibiting the exercise of unbridled discretion.
5
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 9 of 13
At the root of this long line of precedent is the time-tested knowledge that in the area of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship.
The prohibition on unbridled discretion applies fully in any forum, because it can
potentially lead to viewpoint discrimination. See Bd of Regents v. Southworth,
529 U.S. 217, 235 (2000) (remanding question of access to nonpublic forum
because it was "unclear . . . what protection, if any, there is for viewpoint
neutrality"). As the Court has noted, "the absence of express standards makes it
difficult to distinguish, as applied, between a licensor's legitimate denial of a
permit and its illegitimate abuse of censorial power." City of Lakewood, 486 U.S.
at 758.
Furthermore, the Court has held that attempted governmental regulation of
unpopular or offensive speech violates the First Amendment. See Reno v. Am.
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870-71 (1997) (holding that the
Communications Decency Act's prohibitions on "indecent" and "offensive" speech
provoke uncertainty and undermine the statute's stated goal of protecting minors);
Forsyth County, Ga., v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 133 (1992) (fmding
permitting fee ordinance tied to listeners' reaction to speech facially invalid in part
because "[n]othing in the law or its application prevents the official from
encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application
offees"); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 154-155 (1969)
6
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 10 of 13
(determining city commission's authority to regulate assembly based on "public
welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience"
allowed it to "unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly") (internal quotations
removed). See also Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011) ("Outrageousness"
liability standard for speech-based intentional infliction of emotional distress is
"highly malleable" and is likely to conceal forbidden viewpoint discrimination). 3
3 Even if this Court were to assume that the banner ads were governmental speech, "[t]his does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech .... The involvement of public officials in advocacy may be limited by law, regulation, or practice." Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 468 (2009). See also id. at 481 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("Finally, recognizing permanent displays on public property as government speech will not give the government free license to communicate offensive or partisan messages. For even if the Free Speech Clause neither restricts nor protects government speech, government speakers are bound by the Constitution's other proscriptions, including those supplied by the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. Together with the checks imposed by our democratic processes, these constitutional safeguards ensure that the effect of today's decision will be limited."). The Equal Protection Clause protects Mech from exclusion since the schools allowed other prohibited categories of advertisers, including tobacco and alcohol establishments. Compare Doc. 48-4, Attachment 2, at 37. Examples of [Other] Advertising at Public Secondary Schools in Palm Beach County, FL (Ex. 1):
7
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 11 of 13
CONCLUSION
Mech's banners are clearly private speech displayed within a limited public
forum or a nonpublic forum. Walker does not change the analysis. Thus, the
Court should reverse the District Court's Order on Summary Judgment, enter
summary judgment for Appellant, and remand to the District Court for
determination of court costs and attorneys fees.
Respectfully submitted,
8
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 12 of 13
James K. Green, Esq. JA!vffiS K. GREEN, P.A. Suite 1650, Esperante 222 Lakeview A venue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 561-659-2029 Facsimile: 561-655-1357 j [email protected] Florida Bar No: 229466
Jame'sK. Green ~
Lawrence G. Walters, Esq. WALTERS LAW GROUP 195 W. Pine A venue Longwood, FL 32750 Telephone: 407-975-9150 Facsimile: 407-774-6151 [email protected] Florida Bar No. 776599
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James K. Green, certify that, on September 8, 2015, a copy of this
Supplemental Brief of Appellant was electronically filed with the Court using
CMIECF. I further certify that, on September 4, 2015, copies of this Brief were
sent, by Federal Express for overnight delivery, to the Clerk of the Court:
Kalinthia R. Dillard, Esq. Shawntoyia Bernard, Esq. JulieAnne Rico, Esq. The School District of Palm Beach County Office of General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Blvd., C-323 West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Jmnes~ 9
Case: 15-10778 Date Filed: 09/08/2015 Page: 13 of 13