00-1249 Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist.

Listen to this article

Freedman is inapposite because, unlike the motion picture censorship scheme in that case, the Park District’s ordinance is not subject-matter censorship but content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation of the use of a public forum. None of the grounds for denying a permit has anything to do with the content of speech. Indeed, the ordinance is not directed at communicative activity as such, but to all activity in a public park. And its object is not to exclude particular communication, but to coordinate multiple uses of limited space; assure preservation of park facilities; prevent dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible uses; and assure financial accountability for damage caused by an event.

Affirmed.

Local Effect: The decision affirms governing Seventh Circuit law, but leaves unanswered whether “prompt judicial review” of a permit denial means a prompt judicial determination or the prompt commencement of judicial proceedings. Graff v. Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir. 1993), answering the question in the latter, thus remains valid law also.

Scalia, J.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 227 F.3d 921, affirmed.