“The decision was basically, ‘If we don’t want Ms. Geller’s ad to be put up next week, this is the way to do it,’ ” Mortimer Downey, former Metro board chairman said regarding the ‘Geller Ban’ on DC transit ads. (Washington Post)

The DC Circuit court issued their opinion on our free speech lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) yesterday. Unlike other the failure of other legal challenges to the “Geller ban,” the D.C. Circuit sided 2-1 was us on Friday. A majority held that the case was not mooted by the adoption of the new guidelines (note that we sued when they instituted the moratorium, but before they finalized the guidelines). The forum was held to be a nonpublic forum (a case decided by this Court at the end of July—Archdiocese of Washington case—the Archdiocese lost its challenge to WMATA’s rejection of their Christmas ads—held that post new guidelines the forum was nonpublic). Our panel held that the restriction on our ads was not viewpoint based. However, the panel held that in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, the restriction might be “unreasonable” (in a nonpublic forum, restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable). The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of WMATA and remanded back down to the district court for additional discovery and argument. . . The fight continues thanks to our peerless legal team , David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center.

DC Moratorium on Issue Ads Faces Renewed Challenge

By Britain Eakin, Courthouse News, August 17, 2018:

Story continues below advertisement

WASHINGTON (CN) – Beltway-area transit officials will have to show that they had a legitimate basis to ban issue-based advertising after the D.C. Circuit sided 2-1 Friday with a group whose rejected ad depicted a sword-wielding cartoon of a Muslim with a “You Can’t Draw Me” speech bubble.

Seemingly a reference to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the ad came from the American Freedom Defense Initiative, a group whose co-founder, Pamela Geller, has called it a “badge of honor” that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the AFDI as an anti-Muslim hate group.

Depictions of the prophet Muhammad are forbidden in Islam, and the AFDI brought a July 2015 complaint against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for refusing to run its ad.

Months earlier, Geller’s group drew criticism after sponsoring a “Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contest” in Garland, Texas, that ended in bloodshed.

The AFDI noted in its 10-page action that it opposes “the suppression of free speech by Sharia-adherent Islamists and complicit government officials.”

Though a federal judge had ruled in favor of the WMATA back in March 2017, the D.C. Circuit revived the case Friday for further consideration of whether the advertising restrictions are reasonable.

As a nonpublic forum, the WMATA must show that any restrictions it places on speech are reasonable and not targeted against any particular viewpoint.

Writing for the majority Friday, U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg called it clear that the AFDI failed on the viewpoint prong.

“There is no question the moratorium and the guidelines sweep out far more than just AFDI’s advertisements,” Ginsburg wrote. “If WMATA wished to keep out these particular advertisements, then it could have banned, as one example, advertisements ‘with a demonstrated link to violence,’ which would have sufficed given the events in Garland, Texas. That WMATA put in place a much broader ban, even though it resulted in a larger potential loss of revenue, strongly suggests it was not discriminating against the views of AFDI.”

In reviving the case, Ginsburg pointed to the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, where the court held that the state’s ban on political garb at polling stations is unconstitutional.

“We must determine whether Guideline 9 is so broad as to provide WMATA with no meaningful constraint upon its exercise of the power to squelch,” the 30-page opinion states.

U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan concurred in the ruling, but U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson wrote in dissent that the AFDI’s claim is moot.

“I prefer to let WMATA first determine what guideline justifies restricting AFDI’s speech and assess the constitutionality of that determination once it is made,” Henderson wrote in a footnote.

An attorney for AFDI, Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, called the ruling a victory.

“Despite the court’s obvious animosity toward us and our clients, the court was correct to conclude that WMATA’s speech restriction is in peril in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mansky,” Muise said in an email. “The court should have struck it down as a result, but instead, it remanded to the district court.  We believe we will ultimately prevail on this issue.  At the end of the day, whenever you can get an appellate court to reverse an adverse decision, as we did in this case, it is a victory.”

An attorney for WMATA, Donald Verrilli with the firm Munger Tolles, did not return an email seeking comment on the opinion.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

6 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Suresh

5 years ago

Great. Fightback and sue their asses off or it will become like UK
.
In UK sharia Police go after those who protest muslim gang rapists and other crimes http://bit.ly/2r6F3cp

Free speech only for Left/liberal jihadis

0

Poppey

5 years ago

Congratulations to all concerned.

0

Commieobamie

5 years ago

If they can display a Cross in a piss jar, you can sure display a pic of moHOGmad face down in a hog pen eating pig dung.

0

Laurence Jarvik

5 years ago

Maybe you can include the cartoons in your filings, so they are part of the court record?

0

Alleged-Comment

5 years ago

“The fight continues…”. And so does the scheme of lawyers, judges and bureaucrats to soak for more money. When something is right, it needs no “clarification redundancy”, so all their “buddies” can make money.

0

Michael Copeland

5 years ago

….”ended in bloodshed” is Britain Eakins’s smear of Geller’s Mohammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest.
Tell it straight: the event was feloniously attacked (wounding a man) by two armed muslim men intent on mass murder. They were shot in self-defense.

0