# Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 15, 1982 · 688 F.2d 1033

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915775

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald E. MUIR, H. Jeff Buttram, and O. Navarro Faircloth v. ALABAMA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION: Jacob Walker, etc., Defendants-Appellees Gertrude BARNSTONE and Harvey Malyn v. The UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, KUHT-TV
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 15, 1982
- **Citations:** 688 F.2d 1033; 66 A.L.R. Fed. 585
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kravitch
- **Judges:** Anderson, Brown, Clark, Fay, Garwood, Garza, Gee, Hatchett, Henderson, Hill, Johnson, Kravitch, Politz, Randall, Reavley, Roney, Rubin, Tate, Tjoflat, Vance, Williams
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915775

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that public television stations were not “public forums”

## Opinion text

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree with the analysis in Judge Johnson’s thorough and well-reasoned dissent, with one exception: his statement that the government’s decision to withdraw a program becomes presumptively unconstitutional once a plaintiff has shown that the decision was made because of the program’s “substantive content.” In my view, in addition to “substantive content,” there must be shown an improper motivation, an intent to “restrict[] access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed .. .. ” Board of Education v. Pico,-U.S.-,-, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 2814 , 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982) (Blackmun, J., concurring). In this regard I agree with Judge Reavley. I do not join Judge Reavley’s dissent, however, because his standard suggests that intent to suppress must be the sole factor before the withdrawal violates the First Amendment. The Pico plurality explicitly stated that an improper motive is a “decisive factor” and makes the withdrawal unconstitutional if it is a “substantial factor.” Id. at-& n. 22, 102 S.Ct. at 2809 , 2810 & n. 22 (plurality opinion of Brennan, J., Marshall, J., and Stevens, J.). The improper motivation need not be the only factor in the withdrawal decision. For these reasons I write separately.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8915775. Public record. Not legal advice.