Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests, Political Expression
Tatár v. Hungary
Decision Pending Mixed Outcome
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
A restriction on a 150-foot enforcement zone around a border checkpoint was a valid time, place, and manner restriction, and thus, it defeated Plaintiff’s First Amendment motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs include members of the organization “People Helping People” who were protesting the U.S. Border Patrol’s establishment of a checkpoint, which has been operating for the past seven years. The organization drafted and circulated a petition calling upon citizens to protest the legitimacy of this checkpoint, and in December 2013, the organization held a rally in protest of the checkpoint. While the rally was underway, the checkpoint was forced to suspend operations. Subsequently, the organization commenced “monitoring” activities where individuals wearing traffic vests “sought to observe all interactions between agents and motorists during the period monitoring occurred and to record relevant information based on those observations.” Pg. 3. These monitors were accompanied by other protesters. Border patrol required that the protestors move to roughly 200 feet away from the checkpoint, and eventually established an enforcement zone to keep protesters away from the checkpoint. At a later date, the monitors returned and attempted to stand in the previous enforcement zone 100 feet away from the checkpoint. They were ordered by border control to stand 150 feet and told that, if they did not comply, they would be placed under arrest.
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. First, the Court addressed the preliminary matter of whether the Plaintiffs met the requirements for standing. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had standing to proceed. The Court then turned to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction.
In order to grant a preliminary injunction, the moving party must prove that there is a likelihood of success regarding the underlying case and that, if the injunction is not granted, the moving party will suffer irreparable injury.
Plaintiffs argued that the border checkpoint was a public forum and that, accordingly, they should have access to the checkpoint. Defendants countered that the checkpoint is a nonpublic forum and that, regardless of whether the forum is public, the restrictions in place are valid time, place, and manner restrictions. The Court cited current case law, which establishes a right of access to the disputed forum, subject to certain qualifications.
For purposes of deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court assumed that the checkpoint was a public forum. The Court further determined that the policy of keeping people away from the checkpoint was content-neutral because it applied to all persons in the same manner.
The Court found a significant government interest in establishing these border checkpoints to combat illegal immigration into the United States. Therefore, the relevant inquiry was whether restrictions on this checkpoint were narrowly tailored to meet the government’s significant interest. The Court found that, despite the 150-foot enforcement zone, monitors were still able to observe conduct at the checkpoint, including details such as the ethnicity of the drivers, and the behavior of dogs sniffing those drivers. Therefore, the Court found that the enforcement zone restriction was a valid time, place, and manner restriction. As such, the Court determined that the plaintiffs did not have a likelihood of success on the merits and therefore did not address the necessary remaining factors required for the Court to issue a preliminary injunction. The Court therefore denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This case presents a mixed outcome. It denied the Plaintiffs’ injunction requesting the enforcement of a “buffer zone” around a border checkpoint. The Court found this to be a valid time, place, and manner restriction because it was content-neutral and advanced the important government interest of taking measures to combat illegal immigration.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.