holding that fences along highways are not public fora because of the potential distraction to motorists
How later courts described this case
- holding that fences along highways are not public fora because of the potential distraction to motorists
- noting that a risk of irreparable injury may be presumed when a plaintiff states a colorable First Amendment claim
- "Rust addresses only the government’s ability to exclude from a government-funded program speech -is incompatible with the program’s objectives.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by McComish v. Bennett, 653 F.3d 1106 (2010)
[8] We reject Plaintiffs' argument that Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Transp., 321 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.2003), requires us to review the district court's findings of fact for clear error because its opinion was one which struck down a restriction on speech.
Distinguished by McComish v. Bennett, 611 F.3d 510 (2010)
We reject Plaintiffs' argument that Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 321 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.2003), requires us to review the district court's findings of fact for clear error because its opinion was one which struck down a restriction on speech.
The opinion
BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Parts I-IV of the opinion of the court, except for the first paragraph of Part I, the first sentence of the second paragraph of Part I, the sixth, seventh and eighth sentences of the third paragraph of Part IIIA and the last four sentences of the second paragraph of Part IIIB. I concur in the judgment of the court affirming and remanding for further proceedings.