Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County

Decision Date05 August 2011
Docket Number09–3563.,Nos. 09–3352,s. 09–3352
Citation653 F.3d 290
PartiesPITTSBURGH LEAGUE OF YOUNG VOTERS EDUCATION FUND; American Civil Liberties Foundation of Pennsylvania, Appellants in Case No. 09–3563v.PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY; Anthony J. Hickton, Appellants in Case No. 09–3352.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Gregory J. Krock (Argued), Corrado Salvatore, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants.Jon Pushinsky (Argued), Pittsburgh, PA, Sara J. Rose, Witold J. Walczak, American Civil Liberties Union, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellees.Before: SMITH, CHAGARES, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Unlike many of its sister states, Pennsylvania allows felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. In an effort to correct widespread belief to the contrary, a coalition of public-interest organizations set out to run an advertisement informing ex-prisoners that they have the right to vote and encouraging them to exercise it. The coalition asked the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to place the ad in its buses. The Port Authority denied the request, pointing to its written advertising policy, which prohibits “noncommercial” ads. The coalition sued, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the coalition proved that despite its written advertising policy, the Port Authority had accepted many noncommercial ads in recent years, several of which bore a striking resemblance to the coalition's ad. Based mainly on this “comparator” evidence, the District Court found that the rejection of the coalition's ad amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. We will affirm.

I. Background

Many of Pennsylvania's ex-prisoners do not know they have the right to vote. Seeing a need for public education, a coalition of public-interest groups, including the ACLU and the Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Education Fund, teamed up to start the “Ex–Offender Voting Rights Project.” The aims of the Project were to inform ex-prisoners that they have the right to vote, register them to vote, encourage them to vote, and—in the event ex-prisoners were denied the franchise—litigate on their behalf.

The coalition determined that running ads in public buses would be an effective way to reach its target audience, so Lisa Krebbs, an employee of the ACLU, contacted the Port Authority on the coalition's behalf. Krebbs was referred to Anthony Hickton, the Port Authority's Director of Sales. She identified herself as an ACLU employee, described the Ex–Offender Voting Rights Project, and informed Hickton that the coalition was interested in placing an ad in city buses. Although no draft had yet been prepared, she explained that the ad would inform ex-prisoners that they have the right to vote, encourage them to vote, and provide a phone number that they could call if they needed help or had questions. Hickton told Krebbs that the Port Authority would not run the ad. He explained that the ad as described did not comply with the Port Authority's written advertising policy, which prohibited “noncommercial” advertisements.

The coalition tried several times to persuade the Port Authority to reverse course. It corresponded with Hickton and the Port Authority's in-house counsel Chris Hess, explaining that its advertisement was no different from many other noncommercial ads commonly displayed in Port Authority buses. Hickton and Hess refused to budge. The coalition therefore filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The complaint asserted, first, that the Port Authority's advertising space is a public forum and that rejecting the coalition's ad thus amounted to impermissible content-based discrimination. Second, the complaint asserted that the Port Authority had rejected the coalition's ad as a result of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

While the lawsuit was pending, the parties and their attorneys met to discuss a possible settlement. During the meeting, Hess asserted—for the first time—that the Port Authority had rejected the coalition's ad not just because it was “noncommercial” but also because it was “political,” another subject matter banned under the advertising policy. Ultimately no settlement was reached, and the litigation proceeded apace.

After the close of discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The District Court denied the coalition's motion. The Court granted the Port Authority's motion on the content-based-discrimination claim, holding that the advertising space is not a public forum. But the Court denied its motion as to the viewpoint-discrimination claim, concluding that a genuine dispute existed about whether the Port Authority had rejected the coalition's ad because of hostility towards the ad's message. What remained of the § 1983 suit—the viewpoint-discrimination claim—was scheduled for a bench trial.

The trial lasted five days, and the Court heard testimony from a number of witnesses, including Hickton and Hess, the decisionmakers responsible for rejecting the coalition's ad. In support of the Port Authority's position, Hess testified that he had once rejected an “ad from the League of Women Voters that just sort of said ‘vote.’ JA 1428. Hess and Hickton, moreover, offered definitions of the terms “political” and “commercial,” which are not defined in the advertising policy. Their definitions differed somewhat, but they agreed that an ad is not commercial unless it in some way promotes the monetary interests of the advertiser.

The Court also received evidence about other ads that the Port Authority has run in its buses. As it turns out, the Port Authority has not consistently adhered to the advertising policy's ban on noncommercial ads. It has run a number of noncommercial ads in recent years, including ads placed by organizations known as Just Harvest, the Fair Housing Partnership, and the Women's Law Project.

Just Harvest is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the elimination of poverty and hunger. Its advertisement (which Hickton acknowledged was not commercial in nature) informed low earners about their entitlement to the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax credit given to low-income workers and their families. The ad also stated that Just Harvest would prepare simple tax returns for low-income workers free of charge.

The Fair Housing Partnership is a nonprofit group committed to fighting housing discrimination. Its ad informed the public that housing discrimination is illegal and provided a phone number that people could call if they had questions or needed help. The Partnership does not charge for its services, and Hickton knew this when he accepted the ad.

The Women's Law Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the rights and status of women. When originally submitted, the Project's ad said, “Just because you're young doesn't mean you don't have rights. Call the Women's Law Project for free legal information.” Refusing to accept the ad as submitted, Hess recommended that “free legal information” be changed to “confidential legal services.” Although “free legal information” was more accurate (when a woman called she would typically receive free information, not legal services), the Project acquiesced in Hess' recommendation and the ad was run.

After the trial, the District Court issued an opinion concluding that the Port Authority had rejected the coalition's ad as a result of viewpoint discrimination. The Court found, first, that the Port Authority did not really reject the ad because of its supposed political character. Because the Port Authority did not mention this basis until after the litigation had begun, the Court found that it was merely a post hoc rationalization for the rejection. The Court concluded, moreover, that the Port Authority's claim that it had rejected the ad because it was noncommercial was a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. The Court found that the ads placed by Just Harvest, the Fair Housing Partnership, and the Women's Law Project were—like the coalition's proposed ad—noncommercial ads designed to educate readers about their legal rights. That the Port Authority had accepted these ads, but rejected the coalition's ad for the stated reason that it was noncommercial, raised an inference of viewpoint discrimination that the Port Authority had failed to rebut.

The Port Authority appealed.

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We have final-order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's legal conclusions de novo, and ordinarily review its factual findings for clear error. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); McCutcheon v. America's Servicing Co., 560 F.3d 143, 147 (3d Cir.2009). In Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984), however, the Supreme Court instructed that “in cases raising First Amendment issues[,] an appellate court has an obligation to ‘make an independent examination of the whole record.’ Id. at 499, 104 S.Ct. 1949 (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). Independent fact review is necessary, Bose explained, “to make sure that ‘the [trial court's] judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression,’ id. (quoting Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 285, 84 S.Ct. 710), and to provide appellate courts with greater control over the case-by-case elaboration of First Amendment principles, id. at 501–03, 104 S.Ct. 1949.

Bose 's law-refinement purpose is triggered in all First Amendment cases, but its speaker-protection purpose is triggered only in cases where the speaker lost at the trial level. See Eugene Volokh & Brett McDonnell, Freedom of Speech and Independent Judgment Review in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • St. Michael's Media, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 12, 2021
    ...hoc rationalization. See also Am. Freedom Defense Initiative , 901 F.3d at 365-66 ; Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty. , 653 F.3d 290, 297-99 (3d Cir. 2011) ; Ridley , 390 F.3d at 87."[W]here an evaluation of a given restriction and the surrounding......
  • Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 23, 2016
    ...Some types of forums require more than reasonableness, but none allow less. Cf. Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County , 653 F.3d 290, 296 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Pittsburgh ”) (noting that we “need not tackle the forum-selection question” when a law or regu......
  • PG Publ'g Co. v. Aichele
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • October 9, 2012
    ...fora, “content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny.” Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Education Fund v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 653 F.3d 290, 295–296 (3d Cir.2011). A restriction satisfies strict scrutiny only if it is “necessary to serve a compelling st......
  • Norris ex rel. A.M. v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 6, 2020
    ...(emphasis in original) (citing City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 760, 108 S.Ct. 2138 )); Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 653 F.3d 290, 296 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Because the Port Authority did not mention this basis [for rejecting the plaintiff's commerci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT