## Facts

- The New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority (NJSEA), a public entity, owned and operated Giants Stadium and regularly hosted major music concerts as part of its mandate to generate revenue and provide public entertainment.
- Plaintiffs (the band’s corporate entity and concert promoters) contracted with NJSEA to hold OzzFest ’97 at Giants Stadium on June 15, 1997, with Marilyn Manson among the scheduled performers.
- After learning Marilyn Manson would appear, NJSEA notified plaintiffs it would not permit the band to perform.
- NJSEA relied on a contract provision allowing exclusion of performers whose “character” was deemed “offensive to public morals.”
- Plaintiffs sued alleging constitutional violations (including the First Amendment) and related contract theories, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent NJSEA from blocking the performance, interfering with ticket sales, or repudiating the lease.

## Issues

1. Whether a state authority operating a publicly owned stadium used for concerts may bar a particular band from performing because its image or content is “offensive to public morals,” consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether a government entity may enforce a contractual “public morals” clause to exclude performers based on the content or viewpoint of their expression.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction for plaintiffs.
- The injunction barred NJSEA from preventing OzzFest ’97 at Giants Stadium, including Marilyn Manson’s performance, and from interfering with the event, ticket sales, or the lease arrangement.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because NJSEA’s exclusion was content-based (and effectively viewpoint-based) in a forum NJSEA had opened for concert expression.
- The court found irreparable harm because suppressing protected expression for a scheduled live performance cannot be adequately remedied by damages.
- The balance of equities and public interest favored allowing the performance rather than suppressing it based on moral disapproval.

## Legal Principles

- Live musical performances are protected expression under the First Amendment, even if controversial or offensive to some audiences.
- When a government entity opens a publicly owned venue for recurring concert use, it creates (at least) a designated public forum for that category of expression; speaker exclusions based on content or viewpoint are presumptively unconstitutional.
- A state actor may not use contractual discretion, including a “public morals” clause, to accomplish what the First Amendment forbids; the government cannot contract around constitutional limits.
- In First Amendment cases, the loss of expressive rights for even a short period is ordinarily treated as irreparable harm supporting preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined NJSEA from excluding Marilyn Manson from a scheduled stadium concert, holding that a public authority operating a concert venue could not invoke a morals-based contract clause to impose content- or viewpoint-based censorship of protected expression.


Marilyn Manson, Inc. v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth., 971 F. Supp. 875 (D.N.J. 1997)