Speaker 1: Donald Trump's inauguration isn't for another two months, but there's
Speaker 1: already a court fight over where protests can take place
Speaker 1: along the route of the inaugural parade. The fight actually
Speaker 1: predates the election, but it has taken on a new
Speaker 1: dynamic after Trump's surprise victory. That's in part because the
Speaker 1: parade will travel right past the Trump International Hotel. A
Speaker 1: federal appeals court this week heard arguments on a challenge
Speaker 1: to National Park Service regulations that give the president elects
Speaker 1: Inaugural Committee control over the sidewalk in front of the
Speaker 1: Trump Hotel, as well as some other places along the
Speaker 1: parade route. The challenge comes from would be demonstrators known
Speaker 1: as the Answer Coalition, and that stands for Act Now
Speaker 1: to Stop War and End Racism. And that group says
Speaker 1: the space should be open to the public with us
Speaker 1: to discuss the issue. As one of our favorite guests,
Speaker 1: Eugene Volak, a law professor at the u c l
Speaker 1: a s. School of Law, Eugene, this is a long
Speaker 1: running legal fight. In the last ruling, Federal District Judge
Speaker 1: Judge Friedman sided with the government. Can you just give
Speaker 1: us the basics of of Judge Friedman said, sure. So
Speaker 1: basically people have a right to parade and protests and demonstrate.
Speaker 1: But sometimes you have two organizations that want to have
Speaker 1: a parade, protest or demonstration in the same place. What
Speaker 1: do you do. In some situations there are rules that
Speaker 1: come up like first come, first servative, some sort or
Speaker 1: something along those lines. In this instance, the regulations a
Speaker 1: favor the essentially not quite the government, but a government
Speaker 1: chosen speaker, which is to say, uh, the inauguration committee uh.
Speaker 1: And the theory being that this is a this is
Speaker 1: a parade that's organized for kind of governmental purposes, even
Speaker 1: if it's organized by a facially uh private organization, and
Speaker 1: that the government is entitled to say, look, we get
Speaker 1: preferential access to this so long as there are ample
Speaker 1: other places along the rade route where where other protesters
Speaker 1: can speak. And this kind of government preferential access for
Speaker 1: speech is actually pretty commonplace. So, for example, when you're
Speaker 1: talking about things like posting posting signs either like road
Speaker 1: signs or traffic control signs, or or for that matter,
Speaker 1: just things that are posted along the street, um, the
Speaker 1: government often says, look, we're entitled to post things indicating
Speaker 1: a historic markers or directional signs or some sort of
Speaker 1: government public education or advocacy campaign. But it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: the rest of you guys can post it on what is,
Speaker 1: after all, our property. It's a little more complicated when
Speaker 1: it comes to sidewalks. I'm sure viewed as traditional public
Speaker 1: for it. But even there, the senses of the government
Speaker 1: is entitled to say, look, uh, there is an event
Speaker 1: that we are holding here, and you can't hold your
Speaker 1: event in the same place we're holding ours. Eugene Court
Speaker 1: challenges to the localation of inaugural protests have been filed
Speaker 1: every four years since two thousand one, with differing results.
Speaker 1: Why isn't there one set of results? Well, I think
Speaker 1: the problem is that, um, the legal rules end up
Speaker 1: being pretty fact sensitive. A lot depends on the particular
Speaker 1: restrictions that are out there. So, for example, the restrictions
Speaker 1: have to be narrowly tailored to the government interest in
Speaker 1: preserving the space for for its purposes and preventing undue crowding,
Speaker 1: preventing security problems, and also have to leave open ample
Speaker 1: alternative channels. So much depends, uh, much depends on exactly
Speaker 1: what what space is prohibited in any particular uh uh
Speaker 1: particular protests or any particular parade route, and what why
Speaker 1: it's prohibited and what spaces allowed. Eugene, I think if
Speaker 1: you ask the average person, is the Augurabal Committee a
Speaker 1: public or a private organization, they would probably guess public um,
Speaker 1: But it is actually, as you said, a private organization. Uh.
Speaker 1: Does that make any any difference in the way this
Speaker 1: case is analyzed. So it would have if it were
Speaker 1: a purely private organization. But given that it is something
Speaker 1: that is essentially fulfilling kind of a government related function. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's the courts of view is that in a sense,
Speaker 1: the speech is kind of government endorsed speech in a
Speaker 1: certain sense. Not necessarily the government agrees with every message
Speaker 1: that might be sent, but that more broadly, it is
Speaker 1: something that that the government. Maybe all governments have parades
Speaker 1: and other such things to celebrate important political events. Uh
Speaker 1: that uh, that are in a sense authorized by the
Speaker 1: government in a special way, even if they are runs
Speaker 1: sometimes by nonprofits. Well so, so, what so when you
Speaker 1: analyze this under the First Amendment, Eugene, you know, to
Speaker 1: what degree do you have to think of this as
Speaker 1: a public forum? Well, it certainly is a public forum,
Speaker 1: and that is an important point. If this were an
Speaker 1: attempt to protest inside a government building, for example, a
Speaker 1: classic example of a non public forum. The government could
Speaker 1: just say nope, we just don't allow any protests period um.
Speaker 1: And we can have our own people speaking in the building.
Speaker 1: We can have messages we favor on the wealth of
Speaker 1: the building, and you guys, the rest of you can't Um,
Speaker 1: I can't speak, Eugene. We're gonna have to Eugene. I'm
Speaker 1: afraid we're gonna have to leave it there. Uh. That
Speaker 1: is it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We will
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow. Thanks to our technical director Reginald Basil
Speaker 1: and our producer Marks Sinnis Cauchi uh, and thank you
Speaker 1: to Eugene bak U c l A Law School, our
Speaker 1: last guest. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com. Coming up
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for that. Stay tuned for that. Here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio, This is Bloomberg