Young America's Foundation v. Berthelsen

Background

The plaintiffs were Young America’s Foundation, Students for a Conservative Voice, and Ben Shapiro. They challenged the University of Minnesota’s Large-Scale Events Process, a policy requiring registered student groups to obtain approval before confirming reservations for large events. The policy applied to events in large campus venues or outdoor spaces that would draw a significant campus or off-campus crowd or create a significant security concern. A committee made up of representatives from several University departments evaluated proposed events using factors including other campus events, staffing needs, and the event’s effects on the campus and surrounding community.

Students for a Conservative Voice planned a February 26, 2018 lecture by Shapiro. University officials applied the policy and moved the event from the Minneapolis campus to the St. Paul campus, where the selected venue held about 400 people. The plaintiffs alleged that the stated security concerns were a pretext for treating Shapiro’s conservative viewpoint differently from the viewpoints of liberal speakers who had been allowed to use centrally located University venues.

Standing and Personal Involvement

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion concerning standing. It held that Young America’s Foundation and Shapiro lacked standing to seek prospective relief—an order addressing future conduct—because the complaint did not allege that either one was self-censoring or planned to return to the University. The court held that both had standing to seek retrospective relief for the alleged past interference with the Shapiro event.

The court also granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning the personal involvement of President Eric W. Kaler, Vice President Michael Berthelsen, and Chief of Police Matthew A. Clark. The allegations were sufficient to support an inference that Berthelsen and Clark were involved in, or aware of, the decision to move the event. The allegations were not sufficient to connect Kaler personally to that decision. The court dismissed the as-applied claim against Kaler without prejudice and stated that the plaintiffs could seek to add him again if discovery showed that he was involved.

First Amendment Claims

The court treated the University venues as limited public forums. In a limited public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions related to the forum’s purpose, but it may not discriminate based on viewpoint. The court therefore applied that standard rather than the stricter standard used for a designated or traditional public forum.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the facial First Amendment challenge. It concluded that the LSEP was not plausibly unreasonable on its face because the University had significant interests in crowd safety, managing limited space, and minimizing disruption. The court also found that the policy was facially viewpoint-neutral and supplied enough criteria to guide the event committee’s discretion. The facial First Amendment claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the as-applied First Amendment challenge. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true at this stage, the court found it plausible that the University’s decision to move Shapiro’s speech was motivated by his viewpoint rather than genuine security concerns. The court relied in part on the allegations that the decision was made two months before the event without specific information about planned protests and that other well-known speakers had been allowed to use centrally located venues despite security needs.

The court also denied the defendants’ qualified-immunity motion as to the surviving as-applied First Amendment claim. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from personal liability unless the violated constitutional right was clearly established. The court concluded that disputed facts about the security concerns and the reason for moving the speech made it premature to resolve that defense at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss the due-process claim. The plaintiffs argued that the LSEP was unconstitutionally vague because students could not determine which events were covered and officials had too much discretion. The court concluded that the policy imposed no criminal or comparable sanction and that, even assuming the vagueness doctrine applied, the policy provided sufficient notice and standards. The due-process claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the equal-protection claim based on qualified immunity without deciding the claim’s underlying merits. It found that, as of December 2017, there was no clearly established law applying equal-protection principles to a similar as-applied student-speech challenge involving a limited public forum. The equal-protection claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs’ motion to amend was also granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint asserting only the surviving as-applied First Amendment claim and related allegations. The facial First Amendment, due-process, and equal-protection claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the as-applied claim against Kaler was dismissed without prejudice.