Judge Skeptical of Archdiocese Challenge to Transit Christmas Ad Policy
A federal judge appeared poised Tuesday to decline a request from the Washington Archdiocese to force the Washington, D.C., public transportation system to allow its Christmas-related ads to run on city buses.
December 05, 2017 at 03:40 PM
12 minute read
As the U.S. Supreme Court considered a monumental case about whether a baker can be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding Tuesday, another battle over religious freedom brewed in a federal district court down the street.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia seemed unconvinced in a hearing that the Washington, D.C., transit system violated the Archdiocese of Washington's First Amendment rights by refusing to run Christmas-themed ads on city buses. The Archdiocese sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known locally as Metro or WMATA, last month, alleging the system illegally declined to run its “Find the Perfect Gift” ad. The ad is part of a campaign to encourage individuals to return to church during the Christian Advent season and give charitably.
WMATA argues its policy of declining all ads that “promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief” is legal because it was enacted in 2015 to stymie a flow of complaints over other controversial ads, which stressed its resources and caused security issues.
Kirkland & Ellis partner Michael Williams told Jackson during the hearing that WMATA's ban on religious speech in ads was not reasonable, and therefore violates the First Amendment. Paul Clement, the former solicitor general, is also on the case, though he did not appear in court Tuesday.
In addition, Williams argued WMATA's system for deciding what counts as religious speech is arbitrary since some other ads were allowed to reference religion. While other ads that encourage shopping during the Christmas season are allowed, the Archdiocese's ad was rejected solely because it offers a religious view of the holiday, Williams said.
But Jackson said Williams was trying to “mesh” two arguments together, because he argued that the ad in question was covered by religious First Amendment protections, and that Metro could not deny the ad under existing policy because it did so arbitrarily since it allows ads that speak to the “secular meaning” of Christmas, like shopping and presents.
“I certainly felt that they were trying to have it both ways,” Jackson told Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld's Rex Heinke, who represents the transit system, when he took the stand after Williams.
When Williams appeared again before the judge for his rebuttal, they sparred over the difference between ads for the Salvation Army, with Metro has allowed, and the Archdiocese's. Williams said the ads were not different because the Salvation Army is also a Christian organization that promotes service attendance and other activities, and that its ad also encourages people to give money.
Jackson said the stated purpose of the Archdiocese's ads is that people should be charitable because of religious reasons, but the Salvation Army ads do not indicate why money should be given.
“There is no 'because,'” Jackson said. “That's the point.”
Jackson said she would try to issue a ruling soon. The Archdiocese hopes to get a win before the end of the Advent season, though Williams said the case will continue even without a preliminary injunction because there may be other seasons when the church may want to advertise.
As the U.S. Supreme Court considered a monumental case about whether a baker can be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding Tuesday, another battle over religious freedom brewed in a federal district court down the street.
U.S. District Judge
WMATA argues its policy of declining all ads that “promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief” is legal because it was enacted in 2015 to stymie a flow of complaints over other controversial ads, which stressed its resources and caused security issues.
In addition, Williams argued WMATA's system for deciding what counts as religious speech is arbitrary since some other ads were allowed to reference religion. While other ads that encourage shopping during the Christmas season are allowed, the Archdiocese's ad was rejected solely because it offers a religious view of the holiday, Williams said.
But Jackson said Williams was trying to “mesh” two arguments together, because he argued that the ad in question was covered by religious First Amendment protections, and that Metro could not deny the ad under existing policy because it did so arbitrarily since it allows ads that speak to the “secular meaning” of Christmas, like shopping and presents.
“I certainly felt that they were trying to have it both ways,” Jackson told
When Williams appeared again before the judge for his rebuttal, they sparred over the difference between ads for the Salvation Army, with Metro has allowed, and the Archdiocese's. Williams said the ads were not different because the Salvation Army is also a Christian organization that promotes service attendance and other activities, and that its ad also encourages people to give money.
Jackson said the stated purpose of the Archdiocese's ads is that people should be charitable because of religious reasons, but the Salvation Army ads do not indicate why money should be given.
“There is no 'because,'” Jackson said. “That's the point.”
Jackson said she would try to issue a ruling soon. The Archdiocese hopes to get a win before the end of the Advent season, though Williams said the case will continue even without a preliminary injunction because there may be other seasons when the church may want to advertise.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250