Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Conference Call summarizes the roughly 15 percent of all non-pauper petitions that are the most likely candidates for certiorari. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary, and justices in recent years have annually selected roughly 80 petitions from the approximately 7,500 that are filed. Conference Call is prepared by the law firms Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Howe & Russell, which together publish the Supreme Court weblog. Tom Goldstein, who is the head of Supreme Court litigation for Akin Gump, selects the petitions from the docket of non-pauper petitions. Various attorneys for the firms then prepare summaries of the cases. If either firm is involved in a case mentioned in this column, that fact will be disclosed.
Imagine yourself on one of Honolulu’s famously pristine beaches. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping, and you haven’t a care in the world. You place a towel down in the sand and then gaze up at the cloudless sky, when, suddenly, a small plane towing a 46-foot-by-100-foot banner crosses your field of vision. You silently wonder whether there is anywhere in the world you can be safe from the constant barrage of advertising. But as the plane gets closer, you see that it’s no advertisement; instead, it’s a giant photograph of an aborted fetus, and it’s coupled with an anti-abortion message. Startling? Certainly. But is such speech protected by the First Amendment? That is a question that the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and the Thomas More Law Center are asking the Supreme Court to resolve. In truth, the scenario described above is currently purely hypothetical: Since 1970 a Honolulu ordinance has prohibited the “use [of] any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object to display in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever any sign or advertising device.” The cert petition in Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. City and County of Honolulu (No. 06-479), which the Supreme Court will consider at its private conference on Dec. 1, asks the Court to allow the banners and invalidate the ordinance on either of two grounds: first, that Honolulu’s local rule is federally pre-empted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations; and second, that the local rule is inherently unconstitutional because it unjustly prohibits legitimate political speech in violation of the First Amendment. On the point of federal pre-emption, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center) claims that the decision it is appealing from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit directly conflicts with Banner Advertising Inc. v. City of Boulder, a decision of the Colorado Supreme Court holding that such municipal anti-towing ordinances are indeed “preempted by federal law, by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” Honolulu’s brief in opposition, authored by Gordon Nelson, the city’s deputy corporation counsel, contends both that the facts were substantially different in the Colorado case and that the 9th Circuit had previously and consistently interpreted the FAA’s federal regulations governing the display of aerial banners as definitively “not exclud[ing] local regulation of aerial advertising.” Even if Honolulu is correct that the FAA regulations do not preclude local regulation of aerial advertising, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s claim hinges on what it asserts is the noncommercial content of its message. The center is not trying to sell the beachgoers of Honolulu new tires or cans of soda, but rather it hopes to join the debate about the politically important issue of abortion. “Honolulu is not a �First Amendment-free zone’ simply because it is a tourist attraction,” nor is the First Amendment about the “right to catharsis” for the tourists who visit such beaches, the center’s petition argues. The center goes further and states that its anti-abortion message is so powerfully and efficiently conveyed by flying giant banners across the skies of Honolulu that, to quote Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. The petition argues that there is no substitute for the unique “visual impact” that such banners convey, and if the ordinance is not overturned, the center will unjustly be prevented from such political speech. Neither the 9th Circuit nor the city, however, view the air above a beach as a legitimate forum for political expression, regardless of the message that anybody wishes to express using banners. Indeed, although neither side disputes that such anti-abortion messages ought to be protected when expressed within public fora, the 9th Circuit found that “Honolulu’s airspace is not naturally compatible with expressive activity,” and therefore, reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulations against such banners are permitted. Moreover, the trial court found that regulating the airspace above Honolulu’s beaches is an especially reasonable undertaking in light of the fact that maintaining the natural beauty of the island is “of paramount importance” to both the economy and the environment. In fact, the 9th Circuit encouraged the center to spread its message via any number of other public fora that abound, from television to e-mail to “old-fashioned stumping.” According to the court, all of these means of communication exist in order to allow people to conduct the serious and legitimate debate over abortion in this country; the airspace 2,000 feet above Waikiki Beach is simply not among the constitutionally protected locations for such an exchange. The cert petition is careful to note that this issue of whether federal airspace ought to be designated a public forum for protected speech is one that the Supreme Court has never weighed in on. We may know soon whether the Court will attempt to do so. — Jason Harrow
OTHER CASES UP FOR REVIEW INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: • 06-157, Grace v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (CA7) Whether taxpayers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge on establishment clause grounds the actions of executive branch officials pursuant to an executive order. • 06-282, Catholic Healthcare West v. United States ex rel. Haight (CA9) Whether documents obtained by a qui tam relator pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act constitute public disclosures within the meaning of the False Claims Act’s jurisdictional bar. • 06-306, Sawicki v. Morgan State University (CA4) Whether, when an employee is dismissed as the result of the intentionally discriminatory actions of an official who exerted substantial influence over the employment decision, the employer may avoid liability by showing that a different official was the ultimate decision maker. • 06-458, COSVI v. FAC (CA1) Whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 enables a federal district court to manufacture jurisdiction to enforce a settlement by entering a new judgment months after it dismissed a lawsuit without retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. • 06-470, Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Peterman (Ct. of App. of NY) Whether the rule adopted by the New York courts — that those courts may adjudicate an Indian tribe’s interests in its federally approved gaming compact in the tribe’s absence because the tribe could waive sovereign immunity and appear as a party in the suit — is pre-empted by federal law.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.