Richard Hershey v. Dr. John Jasinski, No. 22-2236 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
At Northwest Missouri State University, they must notify an administrator before distributing “non-University publications.” Plaintiff Richard Hershey earns money promoting a vegan lifestyle on college campuses. In September 2015, he visited Northwest Missouri State with a stack of written materials. A student called campus police to report a “suspicious male” who was “attempting to pass something out to . . . students.” About a year later, Northwest Missouri State updated its policy. Nearly five years after he visited, Hershey sued multiple Northwest Missouri State officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to declare the old and new policies unconstitutionally overbroad and to enjoin their enforcement. The district court, for its part, treated the two policies as materially indistinguishable from one another. The main problem, at least in the district court’s eyes, was that neither required “a decision on the proposed speech within a reasonable period of time,” which could have the effect of silencing speakers indefinitely. So it awarded Hershey most of the relief he requested.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the entry of judgment in Defendants’ favor. The court explained that the procedural safeguards that must accompany prior restraints do not apply to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. No matter the First Amendment theory, Hershey has not shown that the advance-notice requirement has “a substantial number” of unconstitutional applications. It is neither content-based nor an impermissible prior restraint on speech, meaning it can remain in place.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kobes, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff had standing to bring a facial challenge against the provision of Northwest Missouri State's literature-distribution policy which required him to notify a university administrator prior to distribution of his materials on campus; he did not have standing to challenge provisions which prohibited the distribution of certain types of materials as the provision then in effect played no part in the University's actions denying him access, and he did not allege a credible threat of enforcement of the subsequently-adopted amendment to the provision; the advance notice provision was content neutral and did not amount to a prior restraint because the provision did not require that the distributor obtain approval, only that they provide the University with advance notice of the distribution; once notice was given, the distribution was unrestricted, provided the materials did not violate other provisions of the policy; award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff vacated in light of the fact that plaintiff is no longer the prevailing party. [ November 20, 2023 ]
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.