Hotel Emples. & Rest. Emples. Union, Local 100 v. City of N.Y. Dep't of Parks & Rec. - 311 F.3d 534 (2d Cir. 2002)

Rule:

The reasonableness of the government's restriction on speech must be assessed in light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances, and must be consistent with the government's legitimate interest in preserving the property for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated. Consideration of a forum's special attributes is relevant to the constitutionality of a regulation since the significance of the governmental interest must be assessed in light of the characteristic nature and function of the particular forum involved. Accordingly, in examining the compatibility between prohibited speech and the particular forum, courts ask whether the restrictions on speech are reasonably related to maintaining the environment that the government has deliberately created.

Facts:

The Lincoln Center performing arts complex was an outdoor square that served as the centerpiece of the Lincoln Center complex. A fountain was situated in the Plaza's center, and public access to the Plaza was unrestricted. To defray the costs of construction, the City agreed to build and oversee the plaza and park areas, together with an underground garage. As the financial arrangements were finalized, defendant Lincoln Center Inc. conveyed a portion of the buildings and public grounds, including the Plaza, to the City. The grounds were placed under the jurisdiction of the defendant City of New York Parks Department. Four years after the complex opened, defendant center took over management of the public areas and garage pursuant to a License Agreement. The agreement provided that the new management had exclusive responsibility for scheduling events, as well as the right to impose fees and bonds in connection with the events in the public areas at the Center, including the Plaza. The scheduling authority was subject to approval from defendant Parks Department. In the exercise of its scheduling authority, defendant center staged its own events and permitted other events that will benefit the Center financially. However, it had traditionally limited approval to events having a performance, entertainment, or artistic component. Thus, its policy prohibited political and labor-oriented events including demonstrations and rallies. But when it denied applications for these types of activities, it suggested approaching defendant Parks Department for permission to use other parks surrounding the center. Plaintiffs, a union, its president, and its agent, namely Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 100 of New York, N.Y. & Vicinity et al., brought this action involving the First Amendment challenging the defendant center's policy in limiting organized public expression in the city-owned fountain plaza. Plaintiff union challenged the policy both on its face and as applied to its proposed actions. It asserted that the plaza was a traditional public forum because it was either a public park, which was a quintessential public forum, or a public place that was functionally equivalent to a park, sidewalk, or thoroughfare. As such, plaintiffs urged that restrictions on speech in the plaza were subject to strict scrutiny. The district court, however, granted defendants summary judgment concluding that the Plaza was a limited public forum. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue:

Were the restrictions on speech in the plaza subject to strict scrutiny?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the plaza was not a traditional public forum. The court ruled that the complex was created as an enclave for the cultural arts, and its policy, as applied to the Plaza which was the architectural centerpiece of the complex, reasonably furthers the City’s intention in opening said space to the public only for a particular purpose. Indeed, the court opined that allowing events that were performance-related promoted the arts and established a community space for the public to experience artistic performances. In view of the foregoing, the court ruled that defendant center’s policy of allowing only arts-related expression was consistent with the objective purpose and public use of the Plaza. Clearly, its policy was viewpoint neutral and reasonable in relation to the forum's function and purpose. Thus, the court concluded that its application to the plaintiffs’ proposed activities was constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.