## Facts

- Rodney Keister, an itinerant evangelical preacher, engaged in street preaching and distributing religious literature on sidewalks at the University of Alabama (UA), using a megaphone and a display table.
- UA personnel and campus police informed Keister that UA’s Grounds Use Policy required a permit and a university sponsor for expressive activity at the initial location.
- After moving to the intersection of University Boulevard and Hackberry Lane, an officer first said no permit was required, then later stated the intersection was also subject to the policy and that returning without a permit could result in trespass enforcement.
- UA’s policy requires non-affiliated speakers to obtain a permit and sponsorship by a UA department or registered student organization; requests “should” be submitted at least ten working days in advance, with faster processing available for some events.
- Keister asserted the intersection sidewalk was a traditional public forum because it was owned by the City of Tuscaloosa; UA treated the area as part of campus for maintenance, policing, and campus pedestrian circulation.

## Issues

1. Whether the intersection sidewalk should be treated as a traditional public forum, rather than a limited public forum, based on evidence that the City of Tuscaloosa owned the sidewalk.
2. Whether UA’s Grounds Use Policy (including sponsorship, advance-notice guidance, and leafletting-related requirements) imposed reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions consistent with the First Amendment in the applicable forum.
3. Whether Keister’s preaching and leafletting qualified for the policy’s exception for “casual recreational or social activities,” eliminating any permit requirement.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UA officials.
- Even assuming municipal ownership of the sidewalk, the intersection remained a limited public forum because it was controlled, maintained, and functionally integrated into the campus environment.
- The permit scheme—including sponsorship, leafletting coverage, and the ten-day advance-notice guidance—was reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and viewpoint neutral.
- Keister’s planned preaching and literature distribution with a megaphone and table did not fall within the “casual recreational or social activities” exception.

## Legal Principles

- Forum status turns on objective intent, use, and control of the property; ownership alone does not determine whether a space is a traditional public forum.
- In a limited public forum, government restrictions on access are constitutional if they are reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and viewpoint neutral.
- A university may require permits and affiliated sponsorship for outside speakers on campus property functioning as part of the campus, including for organized leafletting, when justified by administrability, safety, scheduling, and avoidance of disruption.
- Advance-notice guidance framed as advisory (e.g., “should,” not “must”) and coupled with expedited processing may support a finding of reasonableness absent evidence of denials solely for late submission.
- Exemptions for casual, incidental activities may be construed not to include organized expressive events by non-affiliated speakers involving equipment and planned distribution.

## Conclusion

The court held that a sidewalk embedded in and operated as part of a public university campus is a limited public forum even if municipally owned, and it upheld UA’s permit, sponsorship, and advance-notice requirements for outside speakers as reasonable and viewpoint neutral.


Keister v. Bell, 29 F.4th 1239 (11th Cir. 2022)