Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Each summer, plaintiff leads a group of Christians at the Arab International Festival with a goal of converting Muslims to Christianity. In 2009, Dearborn police instituted a restriction that prohibited leafleting from sidewalks directly adjacent to Festival attractions and on sidewalks and roads that surround the Festivalâs core by one to five blocks; it allowed leafleting at the Festival only from a stationary booth and not while walking. The district court denied a temporary restraining order before the 2009 Festival and granted summary judgment to the defendants in 2010. The Sixth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal for the 2010 Festival, permitting leafleting from outer sidewalks and roads, but not on sidewalks directly adjacent to attractions, then reversed with respect to the "free speech" claim. The restriction on sidewalks adjacent to attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The city keeps those sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive than leafleting; the prohibition is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The city can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.

The former mayor of Seven Hills, Ohio sued for defamation, based on publication of a statement that he "routinely tries to pull off stunts like limiting residentsâ feedback at meetings and barring government employees from running for officeâ and an article that, he claimed, falsely implied that he sought personal information about constituents, including young women, for illicit purposes. The court denied an extension, struck the complaint for failure to prosecute, and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the articles constituted protected opinion, as a matter of law. The article concerning the mayor's letter to young residents does not expressly state or clearly imply illicit motive. The statement about limiting feedback appears to be a statement of objective, verifiable fact, but in the context of an article that contains statements like âpolitical IQ of Quiznosâ lettuce,â it would be unreasonable to read it as impartial reporting. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sanction for failure to prosecute.

The city amended its code to prohibit sexually-oriented businesses in downtown and planned development districts and later published notice of intent to prohibit such uses in a development authority district and imposed a temporary ban on issuance of new licenses. While the ban was in place, the owner sought permission to operate a topless bar in the area. The ordinance requires the clerk to act within 20 days; the clerk rejected the application after 24 days. The amendment prohibiting the use was enacted about two weeks later. The district court rejected the owner's civil rights claims (42 U.S.C. 1983) on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The city's evidence showed that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to deal with secondary effects, blight and deterioration of property values, and leaves open reasonable opportunity to operate an adult business. Even if only 27 sites are available, rather than 39 as the district court concluded, the number is adequate in a city that had only two applications in five years. The 24-day decision period did not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint; prompt judicial review was available.