According to yesterday’s ruling by Judge David Herrera Urias: Leadership Institute v. stokes (DNM):
Kenna Fleig, one of TP-UNM’s co-presidents, submitted an event request form indicating that TP-UNM anticipated approximately 100 attendees for the three-and-a-half hour event. The form states: [the speaker, Riley Gaines,] Traveling with their own security devices, students did not want to request additional security devices. A week later, TP-UNM received an email from UNM informing them that they had requested and had to accept university security… Defendant Stump of the UNM Police Department… Students were provided with an invoice listing the security cost of the event as $10,202.50…
[T]He offered an offer of more than $10,000 for every officer UNM employed, 33 officers. The number of attendees was almost 1 in 3 students expected. When TP-UNM asked defendant Stump why he wanted to assign all officers to the Gaines event and whether it was because of the speakers or the organization of the invitation, he responded, “It’s all based on personal evaluations.” “It’s an individual”, “There are no standards” [sic].”
He also told students that if an organization showed a Barbie movie on campus, UNM police wouldn’t need a single officer because they “don’t worry about the Barbie movie.” He then said that in the past, security had been “consistent” in the way it assessed fees “up to the tipping point.” He described past TP-UNM events featuring other conservative speakers that sparked protests at UNM. During the meeting, he reiterated several times that UNM evaluates security costs “on a case-by-case basis.” …
Mr. Gaines visited the UNM campus at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 4, and spoke to a crowd of about 200 people until 9 p.m. The event was open to the general public. Tickets were free. After the event began, less than 10 protesters showed up and protested outside the venue. The protests were peaceful and non-destructive. No police action was taken or required.
Following Mr. Gaines’ incident, on October 9, 2023, Defendant Stump issued a final bill to TP-UNM for the incident totaling $5,384.75. According to the statement of claim, the university assigned 27 officers to the billed event for a total of 95.25 hours. Only 4 out of 27 police officers were deployed inside the event venue. Fifteen officers were stationed in different areas of the building or nearby buildings. Two police officers rode bicycles outdoors on campus. The three were stationed on a nearby rooftop. Three people were specifically designated as the “arrest team.”
Forsyth County vs. Nationalist Movement (1992) found that governments could not impose additional security costs for speech in traditional public spaces (streets, sidewalks, parks) based on the controversial nature of the speech, and could use ambiguous security cost standards that leave room for He claimed it couldn’t be done. Because of such viewpoint discrimination. And in this case, the court applied Forsyth County Also at public universities:
When the policy “permits the evaluation of facts, exercise of judgment, and formation of opinions by licensing authorities, the risk of censorship and violation of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to permit.”[.]” Forsyth County.… The question in this case is closer than that though. ForsythNonetheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the security fee policies in this case are similar enough to be overbroad. The policy lists criteria officials should consider when evaluating event security, such as venue size and location, but ultimately leaves decisions about security costs to the whims of university officials. For example, the policy does not explain how to determine how much more security is needed at a small venue compared to a large venue, or how much more security is needed at a daytime event compared to an overnight event.
Importantly, although the policy states that “a base security fee is charged to all groups,” according to the billing schedule posted on the UNM Police Department website, the police department nonetheless does not actually specify this amount. “The basic cost of security.” Although the security fee policy states that the police department “regularly” updates its fee schedule “based on factors.”[t]“The basic expenses according to this schedule will be billed to all groups.” There is no billing schedule.
Additionally, the policy’s preamble states that university officials “may assess” security fees, but does not provide guidance on when and if such fees may be assessed. This contributes to the problem of allowing overly broad discretion to university officials. In short, the plaintiffs demonstrated a significant likelihood of success on the merits of their broad claims because the security fee policy did not contain restrictive language that included “narrowly drawn, reasonable, and clear standards.”[,]“And it does not contain anything that would prevent UNM administrators from exercising their discretion in a content-based manner…
In particular, I think the ambiguous standard is correct because it allows discrimination based not only on content but also on perspective. For similar rulings from other courts, see: Sonnier vs. Crane (5th in 2010).
Benjamin Isgur, Braden Boucek and Carter B. Harrison, IV (Southeastern Legal Foundation) represent the plaintiff.
