Cluster 557199

When the government intentionally opens a forum for expressive activity, as it has here, the government “must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829 , 115 S.Ct. 2510 ; Travis, 927 F.2d at 692 (“[I]n a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.”).

In other words, constitutional protection in a limited public forum is afforded only to “expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited public forum.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692 (“[T]he government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.”).

See also Travis, 927 F.2d at 694 (“having an open-door policy that happens to allow religious speech does not ‘endorse’ or ‘establish’ a religion.”) (citations omitted).

Widmar, 454 U.S. at 267-70 , 102 S.Ct. at 273-74 (having opened premises for use by student groups, University had to provide a compelling justification for its exclusion of student groups that desired to engage in religious worship and discussion); see also Travis, 927 F.2d at 692 (“government is free to impose blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of t…

Dist., 927 F.2d 688 , 692 (2d Cir. 1991) ("in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre").

In Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit held that “[I]n a limited public forum, [the] government is free to impose a blanket exclusion of certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.” The Chancellor Town Hall was all about citizens making statements to or asking questions of the Chancellor.

We have held that, after a government entity “‘allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.’” Hotel Emps., 311 F.3d at 546 (quoting Travis, 927 F.2d at 692).

Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, 426 F.3d 617, 625-26 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Peck”), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1097 , 126 S.Ct. 1880 , 164 L.Ed.2d 567 (2006); Make the Road by Walking, Inc. v. Turner, 378 F.3d 133, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Make the Road”). “[T]he level of judicial scrutiny that must be applied to state actions inhibiting speech varies with the nature of the forum in which the speech occurs,” Peck, 426 F.3d at 625 , and the same analytical framework appli…

To fill the crack, cases such as Bouman v. White, supra, 444 F.3d at 975-76 ; Justice for All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760, 765-69 (5th Cir.2005), and Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir. 1991), have carved out a fourth category— *474 a variant of the second, the “designated public forum.” This fourth category is variously (and confusingly) termed the “limited designated public forum” (versus the “true forum”), the “limited public forum,” or the…

To fill the crack, cases such as Bowman v. White, supra, 444 F.3d at 975-76; Justice for All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760, 765-69 (5th Cir. 2005), and Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir. 1991), have carved out a fourth category—a variant of the second, the “designated public forum.” This fourth category is variously (and confusingly) termed the “limited designated public forum” (versus the “true forum”), the “limited public forum,” or the “limi…

See Travis, 927 F.2d at 692; Daily v. New York City Housing Authority, 221 F.Supp.2d 390, 398-99 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (“Somewhat confusingly, the Supreme Court and lower courts also recognize another category, the limited public forum.”) A limited public forum “is created when government opens a nonpublic forum but limits the expressive activity to certain kinds of speakers or to the discussion of certain subjects.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692; see also Good News Club v. Milford Centr…

"Thus, in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre." Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

“Thus, in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

See Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 , 59 S.Ct. 954, 963 , 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939); see also Perry, 460 U.S. at 45 , 103 S.Ct. at 954-55 ; Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

As in a nonpublic forum, in a designated public forum, the government “may enforce a content-based exclusion only when the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692 (internal quotations omitted).

The Travis court, after reciting the three categories of forums and the corresponding constitutional scrutiny standards described by the Supreme Court, declared that “we have identified a sub-category of the designated forum that we have styled the limited public forum’.” Id. at 692 (emphasis added).

The Travis court, after reciting the three categories of forums and the corresponding constitutional scrutiny standards described by the Supreme Court, declared that "we have identified a sub-category of the designated forum that we have styled the limited public forum'." Id. at 692 (emphasis added).

In other words, constitutional protection in a limited public forum is afforded only to “expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited public forum.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

Dist., 927 F.2d 688 , 692 (2d Cir.1991) (in limited public forum, a "sub-category of the designated forum," once government "allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre"); Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 852 F.2d 676 , 679-80 (2d Cir.1988) 7 It is unclear whether appellees contend that the exchanges are "limited public forums" in the sense that this Court has used the term--tha…

It is unclear whether appellees contend that the exchanges are "limited public forums” in the sense that this Court has used the term — that is, as a “sub-category” of the "designated” public forum, in which the government may place blanket exclusions on certain types of speech, but may not discriminate unreasonably or on the basis of viewpoint among instances of those types of speech that have not been excluded, see Travis, 927 F.2d at 692, or that the exchanges are fully o…

See Travis, 927 F.2d at 692; Calash v. City of Bridgeport, 788 F.2d 80, 82 (2d Cir.1986). “[I]n a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.” Travis, 927 F.2d at 692.

Yet the pending lawsuit does not concern the right of FFI to engage in boxing matches, but rather its right to communicate by posting notices of those matches 3 See Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991) (category of designated public forum also contains sub-category styled "limited public forum" open only "to certain kinds of speakers or the discussion of certain subjects") 4 That view elicited a strong dissent from Justice Blackmun: The …

Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist., 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991).

Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist., 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991).

In the case of a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited forum." Id. at 692 (emphasis supplied). 22 Hence, as a limited public forum, the Library is obligated only to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the nature of the Library and consistent with the government's intent in designating the Library as a public forum. 23 Other activ…

In the case of a limited public forum, constitutional protection is afforded only to expressive activity of a genre similar to those that government has admitted to the limited forum.” Id. at 692 (emphasis supplied). 22 Hence, as a limited public forum, the Library is obligated only to permit the public to exercise rights that are consistent with the nature of the Library and consistent with the government’s intent in designating the Library as a public forum. 23 Other activ…

That challenge is barred by the rule of stare decisis, not only as a consequence of the Deeper Life cases but also as a consequence of our decision in Travis, where we held that "in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre." 927 F.2d at 692. 21 In Travis, the school district was constrai…

That challenge is barred by the rule of stare decisis, not only as a consequence of the Deeper Life cases but also as a consequence of our decision in Travis, where we held that “in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.” 927 F.2d at 692.

Significantly, after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Mergens, the Second Circuit decided the case of Travis v. Owego-Appalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688 (2d Cir.1991), a case involving the same issue as the one before this Court. 7 In Travis, the Second Circuit ruled that a school district’s denial of plaintiff Birthright of Owego, Inc.’s application to use the school district’s facilities for the purpose of a fundraiser involving “religious *98 and/or politi…

See id.

See Travis, 927 F.2d at 692 ("in a limited public forum, government is free to impose a blanket exclusion on certain types of speech, but once it allows expressive activities of a certain genre, it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.”). 8 .

See Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist., 927 F.2d 688 , 692 (2nd Cir.1991) ("we have identified a sub-category of the designated forum that we have styled the 'limited public forum.’ ”) Other courts use "limited public forum” as a sub-category of non-public forum, and consider it under a reasonableness standard.

See Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991) (category of designated public forum also contains sub-category styled "limited public forum” open only “to certain kinds of speakers or the discussion of certain subjects”). .

See id.; accord, e.g., Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School Dist., 927 F.2d 688 , 694 (2d Cir.1991) (invalidating statute because defendant school district failed to justify its restriction on speech and religion).

See Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 693-94 (2d Cir.1991).

See, e.g., Travis v. Owego-Apalachin School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991).

Perry, 460 U.S. at 48 , 103 S.Ct. at. 956-57; see also Travis v. Owego-Apalachih School District, 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991) (“[0]nce [the government] allows expressive activities of a certain genre [in a limited public forum], it may not selectively deny access for other activities of that genre.”).

See, e.g., Travis v. Owego —Apalachian School Dist., 927 F.2d 688 , 693-94 (2d Cir.1991).