Working Washington v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JUL 12 2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WORKING WASHINGTON, No. 12-35622

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00566-JCC

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL

TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, Seattle John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2013 Seattle, Washington

Before: EBEL,** W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Working Washington’s

motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm the district court and remand for

proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. In brief, to raise revenue, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority

(“Sound Transit”) authorizes the placement of…

MEMORANDUM **

This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Working Washington’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

In brief, to raise revenue, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (“Sound Transit”) authorizes the placement of advertisements on or at Sound Transit facilities pursuant to the restrictions contained in its advertising policy (“Policy”). 1 The Policy, in relevant part, provides that:

Working Washington, a nonprofit coalition, submitted to Sound Transit an advertisement designed to “raise awareness about low-paying jobs at Seattle-Tacoma Airport” (“Advertisement” or “Airport Ad”). Because Sound Transit determined the Airport Ad to be controversial and political, in violation of the provisions of its Policy, Sound Transit rejected the Advertisement.

In response, Working Washington filed this lawsuit against Sound Transit, arguing that the rejection of the Advertisement violated Working Washington’s rights under the First Amendment. Working Washington also sought a preliminary injunction requiring Sound Transit to run the Airport Ad. The district court denied…

concurring:

I concur in the result.