Case: NAACP v. Peterman

1:20-cv-00613 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Filed Date: July 2, 2020

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The complaint for this case was filed on July 2, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint challenged an ordinance in Graham, North Carolina that forced would-be organizers of protests to obtain a permit from the city at least twenty-four hours in advance. The ordinance gave the police chief total discretion to grant or deny permits based on whether the protest would cause a disturbance. Plaintiffs were individuals and organizations, including the …

The complaint for this case was filed on July 2, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint challenged an ordinance in Graham, North Carolina that forced would-be organizers of protests to obtain a permit from the city at least twenty-four hours in advance. The ordinance gave the police chief total discretion to grant or deny permits based on whether the protest would cause a disturbance. Plaintiffs were individuals and organizations, including the Alamance County Branch of the NAACP and the national NAACP, who wanted to protest systemic racism, police brutality, and a local Confederate monument in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd. They were represented by counsel from the ACLU of North Carolina, the national ACLU, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and private attorneys. Defendants were various city and county officials, including the Mayor of Graham, the Chief of Police of Graham Police Department, and the Sheriff of Alamance County. Plaintiffs brought the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the ordinance and its enforcement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The First Amendment claim alleged that the ordinance was content-based regulation of speech and unconstitutional prior restraint. The Fourteenth Amendment claim alleged that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague since it did not provide notice of what standards were required to get a permit and that it violated the plaintiffs' right to travel. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

The case was assigned to Judge Catherine C. Eagles and Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld.

Defendants consented to a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would prohibit defendants from enforcing the ordinance for fourteen days. The court granted this consent motion on July 6. Then, on July 14, the city council repealed the ordinance, which rendered any issued or prospective injunctive relief moot. The court granted the order withdrawing motions for injunctive relief on July 16.

However, on July 17, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which made the same legal complaints (violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments), but this time focused on being allowed to protest at the courthouse, rather than the ordinance. On July 28, the plaintiffs submitted a second motion for a temporary restraining order that would enjoin the defendants from prohibiting their protests at the courthouse.

In early August, Judge Eagles issued her opinion regarding the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 457284. She held that, while the plaintiffs were highly likely to succeed on the merits, the balance of equities was in the defendants' favor as to the temporary restraining order. She found that the wording of the order was problematic and wanted to give defendants a chance to put in place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to protect public property. Therefore, she denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and left the motion for preliminary injunction pending.

On August 14, 2020, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 4738015. The court found that defendants' actions restricting protests at the courthouse constituted a total prohibition, rather than a time, place, or manner restriction. The total prohibition was not narrowly tailored, and so the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The order enjoined the defendants from prohibiting protests at the courthouse steps, the courthouse lawns, the sidewalks, and the area between the courthouse and the Confederate monument. However, the order left an exemption that allowed the defendants to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions or to temporarily prohibit protests in the event of a short-term emergency (for example, if a person had a heart attack and emergency services needed to interrupt the protest).

A few months later, the parties moved for stipulated consent decree. The district court approved their request on April 21, 2021. The consent decree required that: (1) specified areas around the courthouse must be open for first amendment activity; (2) any restrictions of free speech in these areas must be reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and viewpoint- and content-neutral; (3) adopt amendments to their Facility Use Policy within thirty days such as "use fee waiver;" and (4) county defendants shall undergo implicit racial bias and racial equity training by September 24, 2021. The court retained jurisdiction over this matter for three years.

This case is closed pending defendants' compliance with the consent decree.

Summary Authors

Jack Hibbard (10/1/2020)

Jordan Katz (4/8/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17321304/parties/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-peterman/


show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:20-cv-00613

Docket [PACER]

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

Docket
1

1:20-cv-00613

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

Complaint
2 (incl. 2-1 to 2-10)

1:20-cv-00613

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Alamance County Branch v. Peterman

July 2, 2020

July 2, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
3

1:20-cv-00613

Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

July 3, 2020

July 3, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
15

1:20-cv-00613

Consent Temporary Restraining Order

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

Order/Opinion
22

1:20-cv-00613

Defendants Terry S. Johnson and Bryan Hagood's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

Pleading / Motion / Brief
27

1:20-cv-00613

First Amended Complaint

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Peterman

July 17, 2020

July 17, 2020

Complaint
57

1:20-cv-00613

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Aug. 7, 2020

Aug. 7, 2020

Order/Opinion

2020 WL 4572848

62

1:20-cv-00613

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

Order/Opinion

479 F.Supp.3d 231

63

1:20-cv-00613

Preliminary Injunction

Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17321304/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-peterman/

Last updated Dec. 16, 2024, 10:50 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: North Carolina

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Police Violence Protests

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 2, 2020

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

NAACP of Alamance County, NAACP national, and several individual plaintiffs

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Mayor of Graham (Graham), City

Chief of Police of Graham (Graham), City

Sheriff of Alamance County, County

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact