Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided March 30, 2015No. Nos. 14-1018, 14-1289Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStahl, Circuit Judge
I concur in part because I recognize that Ridley v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.2004), controls Parts III and IV of the majority’s analysis. I respect that the law of the circuit doctrine dictates the outcome of the forum question and the facial validity of the guideline at issue. I write separately to express my opinion that Ridley was wrongly decided. By opening up its advertising facilities to controversial topics of the gravest political issues of our day, the MBTA has created a designated public forum for speech, not a nonpublic forum. I dissent from…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Cohen v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Snyder v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.