Hartman v. Thompson, No. 18-5220 (6th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseFairness Campaign e-mailed a press release, stating that it would protest at the KFB-sponsored annual Ham Breakfast at the Kentucky State Fair, describing KFB’s policies as “anti-LGBT, anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-choice, and pro-death penalty.” Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) require 72 hours’ notice to the Fairgrounds, after which protestors “have to receive a permit … with the specifics of . . . where, [and] the number of people.” Although Campaign did not abide by the KAR, Fairgrounds officials decided to “allow the protest … but to keep it in an area that did not disrupt any services,” choosing an area of the parking lot based on handicap-accessible parking. The next morning, 24 Campaign members arrived and were told that, inside the protest zone, they could use signs, megaphones, “the whole nine yards” but could not disrupt the Breakfast when they went inside. Campaign members presented their tickets and entered the Breakfast without restriction. They were seated at tables farthest from the speakers. After the opening invocation, they simultaneously rose and stood at their tables silently. This action led to their arrest. Some were handcuffed, some had to be forced to leave. All the charges against the protestors were dismissed. Protestors filed suit under 42 U.S.C.1983, alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest and malicious prosecution and First Amendment free speech and retaliatory arrest claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The protest zone, inside the Fairgrounds' ticketed area, was a limited public forum; Fairgrounds had a legitimate, viewpoint-neutral reason for designating a protest zone and the restrictions were reasonable. Plaintiffs knew that the Breakfast was a private event and were unequivocal that their intention to cause disruptions, Defendants had probable cause to make the arrests.
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.