Judge Kiser Dissolves Injunction Allowing Confederate Flag on License Plates

On Friday, July 31, 2015, in  Danville, Virginia -- the last capital of the Confederate States of America -- U.S District Court Judge Jackson Kiser presided over a court hearing about whether the Commonwealth of Virginia could ban the display of the confederate flag on DMV-issued license plates.

The Sutherlin Mansion in Danville, Virginia, the last capital of the Confederacy, is now the Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History and is a short walk down Main Street from the US District Court.

Specifically, the question was whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision allowing Texas to ban the confederate flag from its license plates in Texas also applied to Virginia.  Pursuant to an older 2001 decision from the Fourth Circuit, Virginia was prohibited from disallowing an image of the confederate flag on vanity license plates for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  The Fourth Circuit had held that Virginia's rule was an impermissible content-based restriction (viewpoint discrimination) under the First Amendment.  Since then, nearly 1602 Sons of Confederate Veterans license plates have been issued for cars and motorcycles.

In March 2015, however, the Supreme Court held that Texas's specialty license plate design constitutes government speech, and therefore content-based restrictions on the design and message of the license plates did not run afoul of the First Amendment.  The majority opinion explained that states can use license plate slogans to urge action, promote tourism and tout local industries, and that in doing so, the state can choose to promote some slogans, images and messages, but not others.  The Court compared messages on vanity license plates to message-conveying monuments in public parks.

Given this ruling, the Commonwealth of Virginia asked Judge Kiser to dissolve the 2001 injunction that prohibited it from disallowing the confederate flag on its license plates.  In his ruling from the bench, Judge Kiser agreed that the recent Supreme Court case effectively overruled the prior Fourth Circuit decision, and thus the injunction would be dissolved when he issues a written order.  Judge Kiser rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans' argument that the process for obtaining a vanity plate in Virginia was so different from Texas that the US Supreme Court case should not apply.  A question that still needs to be answered, however, is what will happen to the existing Sons of Confederate Veterans license plates that have already been issued.  Judge Kiser's written ruling is expected to address whether his decision applies just to new plates or also retroactively to include the existing plates.

Attorney General Mark Herring said in a statement: "This ruling will allow Virginia to remove a symbol of oppression and injustice from public display on its license plates.  Virginia state government does not have to and will not endorse such a divisive symbol.  I appreciate Gov. McAulliffe's leadership in calling for the removal of the flag and those on my team who moved quickly to get it done."

Personally, I think that not only was Judge Kiser's ruling the right decision but it was the only decision possible given the Supreme Court's prior ruling in the Texas case.

Ruling in First Amendment Suit Strikes Down Charlottesville Panhandling Ordinance

My office off of Charlottesville’s downtown mall provides me with a great view of each day’s activities in this lively pedestrian space.  On any given day,  I can see the street musicians, vendors, or the blindfolded gentleman who gives away free hugs.  However, an interesting First Amendment case out of the Western District of Virginia is likely to ensure even more activity on Charlottesville’s downtown mall. 

In a recent case, Judge Moon found that a Charlottesville ordinance, which prohibits panhandling on the downtown mall, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution.  The challenged ordinance specifically prohibited solicitation in a 50-foot “buffer zone” of portions of the mall.  The suit challenging the ordinance was filed in federal court over three years ago on behalf of several homeless Charlottesville residents and was initially dismissed by Judge Moon.  But after the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts “buffer zone” law last year, localities around the country have seen similar laws overturned by the courts.  In this suit, Judge Moon found that the City improperly focused on panhandlers when creating its ordinance and struck down the ordinance because it prohibits a certain type of speech.  Free speech advocates seem pleased with the ruling, while downtown business owners seem concerned about aggressive solicitation in areas with high foot-traffic. 

For more information on the case, check out a recent Daily Progress article, found here.  

Summary Judgment Hearing On First Amendment Challenge To Charlottesville's Panhandling Ban

On Thursday, November 21, Judge Moon heard arguments on summary judgment motions in a case challenging Charlottesville's panhandling ban under the First Amendment.  Judge Moon had originally dismissed the case, but the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision in February.

The arguments during the summary judgment hearing focused on whether the City targeted a specific form of speech or whether the City regulated speech in a neutral way, and whether the ban was broader than reasonably necessary.  The ordinance bans panhandling within 50 feet of two vehicle crossings on the Downtown Mall.  The City justifies the ban as a content-neutral regulation that protects public safety.

The Daily Progress quotes Judge Moon as saying: "The way I see this case, frankly, is whether 50 feet, on either side is too much....  I thought the big problem would be the distraction to divers and the danger to pedestrians."

Counsel for the plaintiffs -- a group of homeless men who want to panhandle on the Downtown Mall -- argued "Panhandlers, for the most part, including my clients, sit passively with a sign along the walls of the Downtown Mall.  They don't stop people."

The attorney for the City of Charlottesville argued that the 50 foot ban was reasonable, especially given the other areas where panhandling is allowed: "What we are dealing with is 200 feet total ... on two crossings on a mall that is one-third of a mile long and 60 feet wide."

Judge Moon is not expected to rule for another two months.  Trial is scheduled in the Western District of Virginia for March 3, 2014.