Ball v. City of Lincoln, No. 16-3210 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and SMG on plaintiff's claim that defendants violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. In this case, plaintiff was ticketed and arrested for trespassing after he distributed leaflets in the plaza area of the Pinnacle Bank Arena, which activity was prohibited by the Arena's Exterior Access and Use Policy. The court held that, while the physical characteristics of the Plaza Area may be suggestive of a conclusion that it was a public forum, the use for which the Plaza Area was designed does not suggest that it should be considered a traditional public forum. After considering relevant factors such as the Plaza Area's physical characteristics; its use, function, and purpose; and the City's intent in constructing the space, the court agreed with the district court that the Plaza Area was a nonpublic forum. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that the Policy was reasonable and thus constitutional as not unduly restrictive of plaintiff's First Amendment rights to engage in expressive activity in a nonpublic forum.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - First Amendment. The district court did not err in concluding the plaza area of the Pinnacle Bank Arena in Lincoln, Nebraska is a nonpublic forum and the city's Exterior Access and Use Policy is a reasonable restriction on speech; consideration of the relevant factors - the plaza's physical characteristics; its use, function and purpose; and the City's intent in constructing the space - all support the district court's conclusion; further, there is no evidence the plaza has been used for expressive purposes; rather, the record shows the plaza is primarily used in conjunction with arena activities and there is no evidence the City intended to open the plaza for expressive activities by the public; the City's policy is viewpoint neutral; the policy is reasonable in light of the plaza's intended use and purpose and there are other nearby public area open for expressive activity. Judge Melloy, 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.