## Facts

- Henry H. Pritchard II was president of the South Florida Society for the Advancement of White People.
- Pritchard applied to the City of Miami Beach for a permit to hold a “White Awareness Unity Rally” at the Holocaust Memorial, stating the purpose was “political speech.”
- The Holocaust Memorial was located on land owned by the City of Miami Beach.
- The Holocaust Memorial Committee, Inc., a private nonprofit that raised funds for the Memorial, had authority to adopt regulations governing use of the Memorial.
- The Memorial was staffed by Holocaust survivors.
- Under committee guidelines, the Memorial was to be used for educational purposes and “never for political programs.”
- The committee had not allowed political speech or political events at the Memorial and had denied public-appearance and photo-opportunity requests by politicians and even by some Jewish organizations.
- Roger M. Carlton, the city manager, declined to permit the rally on the Memorial grounds but issued a permit for an alternate location about 400 feet away from the Memorial.
- Pritchard and the Society filed suit in federal court seeking emergency injunctive and declaratory relief, including a temporary restraining order requiring access to the Memorial grounds.
- The International Tile & Stone Exposition and the Holocaust Memorial Committee intervened; the Exposition also asked the court to require the City to alter the permit that had been issued.

## Issues

1. Whether the Holocaust Memorial was a traditional public forum (or instead a limited/nonpublic forum) such that political rallies must be allowed on the grounds.
2. Whether denying access to the Memorial for political speech, while allowing a rally at a nearby alternate site, likely violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether plaintiffs met the requirements for emergency relief (temporary restraining order), including a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
4. Whether the court should order the City to alter the permit in response to the International Tile & Stone Exposition’s request.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.
- The court left in place the City’s decision to deny use of the Holocaust Memorial grounds for the rally and to allow the rally at the alternate site about 400 feet away.
- The court denied the International Tile & Stone Exposition’s request to require the City to alter the permit.
- The court concluded plaintiffs did not show the showing required for a TRO, including a sufficient likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim.

## Legal Principles

- Government ownership of property does not automatically make that property a traditional public forum; forum status turns on the property’s purpose and the government’s intent and actual practice regarding expressive use.
- A government may reserve a site created for a specific commemorative and educational function as a limited or nonpublic forum and may restrict expressive activity to protect that function.
- In a limited/nonpublic forum, restrictions are permissible if they are reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and are viewpoint-neutral.
- A rule that excludes “political programs” from a memorial dedicated to remembrance and education can be treated as viewpoint-neutral when applied across the board rather than targeted at a particular speaker or ideology.
- Providing an alternate site nearby can support the reasonableness of limiting access to the commemorative site itself and can weigh against emergency injunctive relief.
- A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must show, among other elements, a likelihood of success on the merits, and failure on that element justifies denial.

## Conclusion

The federal district court denied emergency relief because the Holocaust Memorial was treated as a limited/nonpublic forum devoted to education and remembrance, the no-politics limitation had been consistently applied, and the City’s decision to relocate the rally to a nearby site did not, on the record before the court, warrant a TRO compelling access to the Memorial grounds.


Pritchard v. Carlton, 821 F. Supp. 671 (1993)