Powell v. Noble, No. 14-3039 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePowell contends that his Christian beliefs compel him to publicly share his faith with others. Powell went to the Iowa State Fairgrounds and positioned himself on a sidewalk outside the paid admission area, close to a heavily-traveled intersection near the fair’s main gate. Uniformed Iowa State Fair Patrol Officers told him to leave the fairgrounds. The next day, Powell returned to the fairgrounds and stood in front of public restrooms outside the paid admission area. Fair Patrol Officers told him to leave. Powell brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 and sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted in part, prohibiting defendants from “arresting or threatening to arrest [Powell] solely for engaging in protected speech on the Fairgrounds in locations where [appellees] have already conceded that he is not impeding or would not be likely to impede the flow of traffic.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of Powell’s motion based on his First Amendment claim and remanded the case for consideration of Powell’s request for preliminary injunctive relief based on his due process claim.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment and due process rights by ejecting him from the Iowa State Fairgrounds while he was engaging in religious expression, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction based on his First Amendment claim as the disputed areas where plaintiff wanted to stand were limited public forums and the restrictions the defendants sought to impose, which were based on a need to manage crowd flow and protect fair-goers, were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral; nor was plaintiff likely to succeed on his challenge to a rule against bringing signs attached to poles or sticks as such a rule is a reasonable safety measure; nor did the district court err in concluding that plaintiff had failed to show irreparable harm with respect to his First Amendment claims; with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was entitled to a preliminary injunction based on his likelihood of success on the merits of his due process claim that the policies the defendants sought to enforce were vague and lacking objective standards, the matter must be remanded as the district court did not address plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of his due process claim. Judge Loken, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.