St. Michael's Media v. The Mayor of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 14 January 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action ELH-21-2337
• Parties: ST. MICHAEL'S MEDIA, INC., Plaintiff v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

ST. MICHAEL'S MEDIA, INC., Plaintiff
v.
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-21-2337

United States District Court, D. Maryland

January 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN LIPTON HOLLANDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff St. Michael's Media, Inc. (“St. Michael's”) filed suit in September 2021 against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (the “City”);^[1] Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott; and Baltimore City Solicitor James L. Shea (collectively, the “City Defendants”), challenging on First Amendment grounds the City Defendants' refusal to allow plaintiff to hold a prayer rally and conference on November 16, 2021, at the Pier VI Pavilion (“Pier VI” or the “Pavilion”).^[2] Pier VI is a City-owned concert venue located in the “Inner Harbor” area of Baltimore. Although the venue is owned by the City, it is managed by SMG, a private company, pursuant to a contract with the City. ECF 1, ¶¶ 8-14, 33-38; ECF 25-2, ¶¶ 2, 4; ECF 16-3 at 2.^[3] Along with the suit, St. Michael's moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction (“P.I.”). ECF 2; ECF 15.

1

St. Michael's subsequently filed a “First Amended Verified Complaint, ” which is the operative pleading. ECF 14 (the “First Amended Complaint”). Among other things, the First Amended Complaint added SMG as a defendant, and added a new count, alleging a contract claim against SMG.

On October 12, 2021, this Court issued a preliminary injunction that, inter alia, barred the City Defendants from prohibiting or impeding SMG from entering into a contract with St. Michael's for plaintiff's use of the Pavilion for its prayer rally and conference. ECF 45 (Memorandum Opinion); ECF 46 (Order). The Fourth Circuit upheld the Court's decision. ECF 86; ECF 87; ECF 91; ECF 92. SMG and St. Michael's ultimately executed a contract for plaintiff's use of the Pavilion, and plaintiff's event was held on November 16, 2021, without incident. See ECF 90; ECF 95 at 2; ECF 102 at 6.

St. Michael's now seeks to amend its suit a second time, to add, among other things, additional claims; to include SMG as a defendant as to certain constitutional claims; and to obtain additional relief. ECF 95 (the “Motion”). The Motion is accompanied by an email exhibit (ECF 95-1); the proposed “Second Amended Verified Complaint” (ECF 95-2); and a redlined version of the Second Amended Complaint. ECF 95-3.^[4]

Defendants oppose the Motion (ECF 102, the “Opposition”), supported by several exhibits. ECF 102-1 to ECF 102-7. And, St. Michael's has replied. ECF 103 (the “Reply”).

2

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background. Therefore, I need not recount the background in detail. Rather, I shall incorporate the factual summary set forth in my Memorandum Opinion of October 12, 2021. See ECF 45 at 5-27. And, I shall include recent developments.

A.

The litigation began on September 13, 2021, when St. Michael's filed suit against the City; Scott; and Shea. ECF 1. The First Amended Complaint (ECF 14) alleges that the City Defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution by denying plaintiff the right to hold a prayer rally and conference at the Pavilion on November 16, 2021. It is situated in a commercial area of downtown Baltimore known as the “Inner Harbor.” Id. ¶ 7. As noted, the City owns the Pavilion, but it is managed by SMG, a private company that operates under the name “Royal Farms Arena.” Id.

St. Michael's, a non-profit organization, “is a vocal critic of the mainstream Catholic Church, ” including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”). ECF 1, ¶ 66; see ECF 14, ¶ 75; ECF 1, ¶ 3. From November 15 - 18, 2021, the USCCB was scheduled to meet in Baltimore at the Waterfront Marriott Hotel (the “Hotel”), a private facility located near Pier VI. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. At least in part, plaintiff sought to hold the prayer rally and conference in order to criticize the Church, particularly with respect to child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, and the Church's alleged protection of the clergy. Id. ¶¶ 3, 7-10. And, plaintiff wanted to

3

do so on a date that coincided with the USCCB's Fall General Assembly, in a location near the site of the USCCB's meeting, so that the clergy would be aware of the rally. Id. ¶¶ 8-10, 42.

Notably, this was not plaintiff's first event at Pier VI. In 2018, St. Michael's held a rally at the Pavilion, also while the USCCB met at the Hotel. Id. ¶ 12. And, plaintiff made arrangements for that rally with SMG. Id. ¶ 9, 12.

With regard to the 2021 rally, plaintiff engaged in contract negotiations with SMG to rent the Pavilion for the desired date. And, it paid the requested $3, 000 deposit. Id. ¶ 13. However, on or about August 5, 2021, weeks after plaintiff had paid the $3, 000 deposit to SMG for use of the Pavilion on November 16, 2021, SMG, on instruction of the City, notified St. Michael's that plaintiff could not rent the Pavilion. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14. The City cited safety concerns linked to some of the people who were identified as speakers at the event. Id. ¶¶ 15-19. At the time of the cancellation, plaintiff's contract with SMG had not yet been executed, although plaintiff claims that all of the terms had actually been finalized. ECF 14, ¶¶ 15, 18, 101.

This suit followed. As noted, along with the suit, St. Michael's moved for a TRO and a P.I. ECF 2 at 13. St. Michael's asked the Court to compel SMG to “fulfill its contractual obligations with St. Michael's” and to enjoin the defendants from “interfering with St. Michael's preparing for and conducting” its rally on November 16, 2021. Id. at 13-14. I granted the TRO, in part. ECF 9. In particular, I ordered the City Defendants not to prevent St. Michael's from making arrangements for the rally. Id. But, I did not order SMG, a non-party at the time, to execute a contract with plaintiff.

Thereafter, St. Michael's filed its First Amended Complaint (ECF 14), adding SMG as a defendant, and adding a contract claim, directed only at SMG. The Amended Complaint contains five “Claim[s] for Relief.” The first four are constitutional claims under the First Amendment,

4

lodged only against the City Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. SMG is the sole defendant in the fifth claim. I shall refer to each claim as a count.

Count I alleges that the City Defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech. ECF 14, ¶¶ 48-61. Count II alleges that the City Defendants violated plaintiff's “Right of Free Exercise of Religion, ” as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 62-72. In Count III, plaintiff claims that the City Defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 73-83. And, Count IV asserts that the City Defendants violated plaintiff's right of assembly, as protected by the First Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 84-98. Count V, lodged against SMG, seeks specific performance of the alleged contract between plaintiff and SMG. Id. ¶¶ 99-113.

St. Michael's also filed an amended P.I. motion. ECF 15 (the “P.I. Motion”). Defendants opposed the P.I. Motion (ECF 25), and St. Michael's replied. ECF 34. At the Court's request (ECF 34), defendants filed a surreply. ECF 37.

On September 21, 2021, St. Michael's filed an “Emergency Motion for Immediate Status Conference And For Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt.” ECF 19. The Court held a telephone conference on the same day, and I denied the motion. ECF 22. But, I required SMG to maintain the availability of the Pavilion for the date of November 16, 2021, in the event plaintiff were to prevail with regard to the P.I. Motion. Id. at 2.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the P.I. Motion on September 30, 2021, and October 1, 2021, at which testimony was presented by plaintiff. ECF 43; ECF 44. Defendants elected not to present any testimony. However, both sides submitted multiple exhibits.

In a Memorandum Opinion (ECF 45) and an Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF 46) dated October 12, 2021, I granted the P.I. Motion in part and denied it in part. As to Count I,

5

plaintiff's free speech claim, I found, based on the record, that the Pavilion was either a nonpublic forum or a limited public forum. ECF 45 at 41-53. As a result, the City would be entitled to impose reasonable restrictions in light of the purpose served by the forum, so long as its reasons were viewpoint neutral. Id. at 44-48, 53-54. But, I found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech and free assembly claims because, based on the record, the City's decision was not viewpoint-neutral. Id. at 53-73.

In concluding that the City's conduct was not viewpoint-neutral, I focused on the following: 1) the City's stated reasons for cancelling plaintiff's event, including its reliance on prior inflammatory rhetoric of some of the rally speakers, and the alleged ties of plaintiff to the events of January 6, 2021, which, in the City's view, could lead to violence; 2) the City's unfettered, standards-free discretion; 3) its invocation of the “heckler's veto;” and 4) the emergence during the litigation of justifications for the City's decision that were not reflected in the evidence as to the City's reasons when it made the decision to terminate the event. Id. at 53-71.

I also found that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities favored plaintiff, and that an injunction was in the public interest. Id. at 82-84. But, I observed that, given the nature of the forum, the City had the right to implement reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limitations anchored in lawful justifications. Id. at...