ACLJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Case Where Pro-Life Demonstrators Were Punished for Free Speech Activity in Kansas City, Missouri.

WASHINGTON -- The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case involving pro-life demonstrators whose constitutional rights were violated when they were arrested for expressing their pro-life views on public property in Kansas City, Missouri. The ACLJ, which represents five demonstrators, is asking the high court to take the case and overturn an appeals court decision that determined the city acted properly in stifling the free speech of the demonstrators.

"This is an important case involving the constitutional rights of those who oppose abortion to be able to speak out freely without being punished for their views," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ. "The appeals court wrongly concluded that the city acted properly in punishing pro-life demonstrators because of the content of their signs. The Constitution does not permit public officials unfettered discretion to decide which messages are 'too offensive' and then take action to remove the message simply based on the content of the message. We are hopeful the high court takes the case and overturns a very troubling appeals court decision that violates the First Amendment rights of our clients."

In its petition asking the high court to take the case (posted online at http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/041208_Frye_v_Tarwater_cert_ petition.pdf), the ACLJ argues the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit erred in its July 2004 decision upholding a district court decision that concluded that Kansas City authorities acted properly in June 2001 when police arrested pro-life demonstrators who were peacefully assembled on public property at a Kansas City intersection. (Due to its length, this URL may need to be copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove the extra space if one exists.) Police objected to the pro-life signs calling them "offensive." The ACLJ convinced a court to drop the loitering charges against the demonstrators and in March 2002 filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Kansas City police department for their actions.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, the ACLJ brief said the appeals court decision is not only flawed but conflicts with precedents of the Supreme Court and numerous federal appeals courts.

"The constitutional right to free speech lacks all vitality if it can be suppressed for so flimsy a reason as that the content of the message (as opposed to its format) is distracting or disturbing to motorists. Rare indeed is the labor picket, the pro-life rally, the civil rights march, or the political speech that will not annoy and distract some passersby. Yet the court below condoned the suppression of particular messages on precisely this rationale," states the brief.

The ACLJ brief also notes that Judge C. Arlen Beam, who issued a dissenting opinion in the appeals court decision, stated that the city's action violated the First Amendment by creating what is known as a "heckler's veto" - when the government suppresses one person's speech based on another's objection to the speech. Judge Beam said the city's action was wrong and concluded that motorists who were offended by the signs should have looked away and driven on instead of looking to the government to silence the demonstrators.

The American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.