Asu Students for Life v. Michael Crow

Ninth Circuit

Asu Students for Life v. Michael Crow

357 F. App'x 156

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2009

Docket08-15905

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 F. App'x 156 (Asu Students for Life v. Michael Crow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asu Students for Life v. Michael Crow, 357 F. App'x 156 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

We take judicial notice of Arizona State University’s (ASU) revisions to its one-zone and insurance policy. ASU Students for Life (ASUSL) is not challenging this new policy. It is “absolutely clear” *158 that ASU will not revert to its 2005 policy, see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000), because, among other reasons, Appellees stated in open court that ASU will not return to that policy and ASU’s revised insurance requirements are consistent with current case law, see Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1031 (9th Cir.2009); Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, ASUSL’s claims for prospective relief are moot. We vacate the portion of the district court’s order that deals with ASUSL’s claims for prospective relief and remand with instructions to dismiss these claims. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994).

ASUSL’s claims for nominal damages against Ramage and Schroeder in their individual capacities also fail. Even assuming ASU’s insurance requirement and one-zone policy violated ASUSL’s First Amendment rights, ASUSL has failed to establish that it would be clear to a reasonable official that applying these requirements was unlawful. See Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). At the time of the events in this case, we had only upheld a city’s requirement that speakers post a bond for liability insurance to cover damages resulting from the effects of the speech on park visitors. Gerritsen v. City of Los Angeles, 994 F.2d 570, 578-79 (9th Cir.1993). ASUSL has not identified “a consensus of cases of persuasive authority” that would make it clear to Ramage and Schroeder that their actions were unlawful. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED with instructions.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

We take judicial notice of Arizona State University’s (ASU) revisions to its one-zone and insurance policy. ASU Students for Life (ASUSL) is not challenging this new policy. It is “absolutely clear” *158 that ASU will not revert to its 2005 policy, see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000), because, among other reasons, Appellees stated in open court that ASU will not return to that policy and ASU’s revised insurance requirements are consistent with current case law, see Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1031 (9th Cir.2009); Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, ASUSL’s claims for prospective relief are moot. We vacate the portion of the district court’s order that deals with ASUSL’s claims for prospective relief and remand with instructions to dismiss these claims. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994).

ASUSL’s claims for nominal damages against Ramage and Schroeder in their individual capacities also fail. Even assuming ASU’s insurance requirement and one-zone policy violated ASUSL’s First Amendment rights, ASUSL has failed to establish that it would be clear to a reasonable official that applying these requirements was unlawful. See Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). At the time of the events in this case, we had only upheld a city’s requirement that speakers post a bond for liability insurance to cover damages resulting from the effects of the speech on park visitors. Gerritsen v. City of Los Angeles, 994 F.2d 570, 578-79 (9th Cir.1993). ASUSL has not identified “a consensus of cases of persuasive authority” that would make it clear to Ramage and Schroeder that their actions were unlawful. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 617, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part and REMANDED with instructions.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 F. App'x 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asu-students-for-life-v-michael-crow-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack