Read Green v. City of Raleigh, 07-1351

In a suit challenging the constitutionality of city ordinances requiring those who wish to picket on public ways to provide the city with prior notice of this intent and comply with certain restrictions while picketing, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff abandoned his facial challenges to an original set of ordinances; 2) plaintiff has standing to challenge amended ordinances facially and as-applied, and original ordinances as-applied; 3) the plaintiff's challenge was not moot; 4) the ordinances were narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; 5) the ordinances left ample alternative channels for communication; and 6) the ordinances set forth clear requirements regulating picketing and extended to city officials no discretion to prohibit picketing that complies with these requirements.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/29/2008
• Decided 04/16/2008
• Published 04/16/2008

Judges

• Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Nathan W. Kellum, Alliance Defense Fund, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.  Dorothy K. Leapley, Deputy City Attorney for the City of Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Jonathan A. Scruggs, Alliance Defense Fund, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant.  Thomas A. McCormick, City Attorney for the City of Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.