Lawsuit Challenges D.C. Transit Authority for Violating the First Amendment
Complaint alleges that WMATA unlawfully rejected controversial ads
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of the District of Columbia, the First Liberty Institute, and the law firm of Steptoe, LLP, today challenged the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority鈥檚 (WMATA) advertising restrictions as violations of the First Amendment.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of WallBuilders Presentations (鈥淲allBuilders鈥�), an organization advocating for Americans to understand their history and the important role religion played in the founding of our nation, which sought to advertise on the side of WMATA Metro buses. WMATA rejected the ads on the ground that they violated its advertising guidelines, which prohibit advertising 鈥渋ntended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying public opinions.鈥� It is also apparent that WallBuilders鈥� ads violated the guidelines鈥� prohibition on advertisements 鈥渢hat promote or oppose any religion, religious practice, or belief.鈥�
The lawsuit argues that these violate the First Amendment, which prohibits government agencies from discriminating against private speech based on their viewpoint or from imposing rules that aren鈥檛 applied consistently. The lawsuit provides many examples of ads about controversial issues that WMATA has accepted, such as recent ads demanding Supreme Court term limits along with ads demanding transparency in hospital prices. WMATA has also accepted ads with religious content, such as an ad for The Book of Mormon musical, which harshly lampoons the Mormon Church and religion in general. The lawsuit shows how the guidelines inevitably lead to discrimination based on advertisers鈥� viewpoints and are necessarily applied in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner.
This free speech lawsuit is the second filed by the 老澳门开奖结果 that challenges WMATA鈥檚 advertising guidelines. The 2017 lawsuit, 老澳门开奖结果 et al. v. WMATA, documents how WMATA has discriminated against a variety of viewpoints, including an abortion pill ad from the women鈥檚 health care collective Carafem, an 老澳门开奖结果 ad seeking to display the text of the First Amendment in several languages, an ad for Milo Worldwide LLC (the company of conservative commentator and writer Milo Yiannopoulos), and an ad by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 老澳门开奖结果 et al. v. WMATA is still pending, and information on the lawsuit may be found here.
鈥淭he case against WMATA is a critical reminder of what鈥檚 at stake when government entities exercise selective censorship. The First Amendment doesn鈥檛 play favorites; it ensures that all voices, regardless of their message, have the right to be heard,鈥� said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the 老澳门开奖结果-D.C. 鈥淭he 老澳门开奖结果 defends these suits, regardless of whether it agrees with the underlying message, because it believes in the speaker鈥檚 right to express it. The government cannot arbitrarily decide which voices to silence in public forums.鈥�
鈥淭he First Amendment grants all Americans the right to express their point of view, religious or secular,鈥� said First Liberty Senior Counsel Jeremy Dys. 鈥淩ejecting a faith-based advertising banner by labeling it an 鈥榠ssue ad,鈥� while accepting other ads such as those promoting a 鈥楽ocial Justice School,鈥� 鈥楨arth Day,鈥� and the highly controversial idea of terms limits for Supreme Court justices, is clearly hypocritical, discriminatory, and illegal. WMATA must support the freedoms provided in the First Amendment rather than silence Americans through censorship.鈥�
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the WMATA guidelines prohibiting 鈥渋ssue ads鈥� and ads with religious content unconstitutional and to order WMATA to accept and run the WallBuilders advertisements it had rejected and others that would violate these guidelines.
The complaint in today鈥檚 case, WallBuilders v. WMATA, may be found here.
The rejected ads can be viewed .
Related Documents
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.