The Convention Center Plaza
The City of Riverton owns a paved plaza adjoining its publicly owned convention center. For forty years the plaza has hosted farmers' markets, holiday fairs, and political rallies; the city has never required a permit for any of them. In March the city council, citing crowding at a trade show, adopted Ordinance 447: (1) no person may 'solicit money or signatures' within 30 feet of any convention center entrance on event days; (2) no sign larger than 18 by 24 inches may be displayed on the plaza at any time; (3) violations carry a $250 fine. Dana, a union organizer, was fined $250 last month for holding a 4-by-3-foot sign reading 'Riverton Workers Deserve a Contract' while standing 12 feet from an entrance. She never solicited anything. She sues for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to invalidate all three provisions.
1. Dana attacks clause (1) even though she never solicited anything. Does she have Article III standing as to that clause, and can she use the overbreadth doctrine to get there?
Read the worked answer
On the pleaded facts, no standing as to clause (1).
- Injury in fact: Dana easily satisfies standing for clause (2) and the fine-a concrete $250 pecuniary injury, traceable to the ordinance and redressable by an injunction. But clause (1) has never been applied to her, and she has no stated intention to solicit donations or signatures.
- Overbreadth is not a standing substitute. In the First Amendment context, overbreadth lets a litigant whose own conduct is unprotected challenge a statute that reaches a substantial amount of protected speech. What it relaxes is the rule that a party may assert only her own rights; it does not manufacture an Article III injury. A plaintiff whose conduct falls entirely outside a provision still needs a credible threat of enforcement against her.
- The fix: if Dana amends to allege that she plans to circulate a contract-signature petition at the plaza next month and would do so but for clause (1), she has a credible threat of prosecution and can challenge it-and, once she has standing to attack that provision, the relaxation of third-party standing principles lets her argue that the 30-foot zone sweeps in substantially more protected speech than the city's interest requires.
Judgment call: courts are split on how far the 'no standing at all' line goes when a plaintiff is already lawfully in court challenging a related provision; the stronger position is that a plaintiff still needs her own injury as to each provision.
2. Classify the plaza for forum purposes and evaluate clauses (1) and (2) under the applicable standard of scrutiny.
Read the worked answer
Forum. A city-owned plaza that has served for four decades as a site for rallies and public gatherings is a traditional public forum (or, at the least, a designated one). Content-neutral time, place, and manner rules are valid there only if they are narrowly tailored to a significant governmental interest and leave open ample alternative channels.
Clause (1) - the 30-foot buffer. The provision regulates a manner of expression rather than a viewpoint: it restricts where solicitation happens, not which message is conveyed. Whether it survives turns on the record:
- Favorable: a fixed buffer at entrances, limited to event days, leaves the rest of the plaza available; the city can point to crowd crush and access concerns.
- Unfavorable: if the crowding problem occurred at one gate, a zone drawn around every entrance is broader than necessary; and signature gathering, unlike a merchandise sale, is close to the core of political speech, which cuts against any geographic exclusion.
Clause (2) - the sign cap. A 18-by-24-inch ceiling on the entire plaza at all times is, in practical effect, a ban on the classic handheld protest sign-a cheap, historic medium. Even accepting content neutrality, the city must show that this near-total foreclosure is necessary. With no permit scheme, no evidence of sign-related injury, and obvious narrower tools (size limits keyed to congestion, limits near entrances, a carry-and-display rule), clause (2) likely fails narrow tailoring.
Bottom line: sustain clause (1) only if the record supports it and consider narrowing; invalidate clause (2).
3. Dana sues the city and the six council members individually for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. What must she establish against the city, and what is the council members' strongest defense?
Read the worked answer
Against the city. Municipal liability requires that the constitutional deprivation flow from an official policy, custom, or a decision of a final policymaker; respondeat superior will not do. Here the ordinance is the policy: a formal enactment by the city's legislative body is the paradigm of official policy, so if any provision is unconstitutional, the city faces liability without any need to show a pattern of prior violations. Dana must still prove the underlying violation and her damages.
Against the individual members. Their strongest defense is absolute legislative immunity from damages for their votes on the ordinance. Members of a local legislative body acting in a legislative capacity-voting on generally applicable rules-are absolutely immune from civil liability for that conduct, even if the law they enacted is unconstitutional. That immunity is broader and cleaner than qualified immunity, which would require the two-step inquiry into whether a violation occurred and whether the law was clearly established.
Where absolute immunity stops: it protects the act of voting, not ministerial enforcement. If a member personally directed police to cite Dana, or the city's enforcement arm carried out an unconstitutional policy, qualified immunity would govern, and the outcome would turn on how clearly established the governing law was-an easier defense for the buffer zone than for the flat sign ban.