II. The panel opinion extended Bloedorn’s exception for interior campus sidewalks beyond the campus

INTRODUCTION

The panel’s conclusion that public university buildings next to a

public sidewalk make speech on that sidewalk less free is a “precedent-

setting error of exceptional importance” that merits en banc review.

11th Cir. R. 35-3. Speaking freely in traditional public fora, like side-

walks along city streets, “is a privilege inherent in citizenship of the

United States which the [First] Amendment protects.” Hague v. Comm.

For Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 512 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.); accord

id. at 515–16. Yet the panel’s ruling strips that right from the public.

Its analysis conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent, radi-

cally expands Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2011), and

creates a split with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.

Time and again, YAF has seen public universities take every

opportunity to suppress speech in traditional public fora, both explicitly

and under cover of supposedly viewpoint-neutral regulations. These

actions injure the rights of non-students like Mr. Keister, but they work

even greater harm to students. This is especially true for conservative

students like YAF’s members.

The culture of free speech at public universities is such that, just

weeks ago, a mob of 200 students physically attacked a male YAF

member and chased one of YAF’s female members through campus,

forcing her to hide in a men’s bathroom stall. Their transgression?

These YAF members welcomed Lieutenant Colonel Allen West to speak

on campus on the subject “America Is Not Racist.

”2

Yet despite this hostile attitude towards the open exchange of

ideas, public universities often do little to protect free expression. Some

have contended their “streets, sidewalks, quadrangles, plazas, and

park-like lawns” are “non-public fora” even for students,3 and that

students’ speech about their religious beliefs in those fora “arguably

rose to the level of ‘fighting words.’” Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S.

Ct. 792, 797 (2021). It is bad enough that those anti-speech policies

control on campus. But if public universities can also control the public,

city sidewalks beyond, as the panel’s ruling here allows, they will take

it as permission to further silence student expression.

Free speech on city sidewalks is a matter of fundamental right,

not of “noblesse oblige” from public universities. United States v.

Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 480 (2010). If anything, proximity to a public

university building should make speech on a public sidewalk more free,

not less. The Court should grant en banc review.

2 See Kara Zupkus, BREAKING: Allen West Escorted From YAF Event By Police, Irate Mob Chases and Assaults Conservative Student, Young America’s Foundation (Apr. 7, 2022), https://bit.ly/3vydPL4. 3 See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 13, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 1:16-cv-04658 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2017), ECF No. 18-1.