Ninth Circuit: Seattle Event Permit Standing Argued in Free Speech Case

• A Christian group, MayDay USA, is challenging Seattle's public event permitting scheme as unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit.
• The group sued Seattle in September 2025, alleging First Amendment and 14th Amendment violations after their 2022 rally.
• A district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding the group lacked standing due to no credible risk of future enforcement.
• The Ninth Circuit panel expressed skepticism, noting the group conceded it had no concrete plans for another Seattle rally.
• The court emphasized the need for a concrete intent to return to Seattle to establish standing for prospective injunctive relief.

Litigants must demonstrate a concrete and credible intent to return to the specific jurisdiction and engage in the activity that would be affected by the challenged policy.

In April 2022, the Christian revival group MayDay USA organized a worship rally in Seattle, promoting anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion messages. The City of Seattle denied the group's initial request to hold their event on Pike Street, a location known as a hub for the city's LGBTQ+ community, but subsequently issued a permit for Cal Anderson Park. The event at Cal Anderson Park drew counter-protesters, leading to police intervention and organizers being instructed to conclude the gathering. Following the event, then-Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell publicly characterized it as an "extreme right-wing rally."

This incident culminated in MayDay USA, along with a Washington state pastor and leaders from the Christian Her Voice Movement (also known as Tetelestial Ministries), filing a lawsuit against Seattle in September 2025. Their complaint alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, and free religious exercise, alongside equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The group sought a First Amendment preliminary injunction to prevent the city from enforcing its public event permitting scheme, arguing that the denial of their preferred location was based on the religious content and viewpoint of their expression. U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein issued a mixed ruling in February, determining that the group lacked Article III standing to pursue a preliminary injunction because they had not demonstrated a credible risk of future enforcement.

The legal battle escalated to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel recently heard arguments regarding the Seattle public event permitting scheme. Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel representing MayDay USA, contended that the district court's decision should be reversed. Schmid argued that his clients had clearly established Article III standing to challenge a permitting scheme that, in his view, grants "unbridled discretion" not only to government officials but also to non-government actors. He emphasized MayDay USA's consistent dedication to speaking out on contemporary issues since its formation.

However, the appellate panel expressed skepticism regarding the group's entitlement to relief. U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Donald Trump appointee, questioned the basis for standing, stating that without a clear intention to hold another demonstration in Seattle, the city's permitting scheme would not cause injury. Judge Miller pressed the group's counsel on how to address this apparent gap in their complaint. While MayDay USA conceded it had no concrete plans for another rally in Seattle, Schmid asserted that their history of frequent activism—having held 13 events in two years, including one in Los Angeles just a week after the Seattle incident where they faced hostility—indicated a strong likelihood of their return. Judge Miller countered this by noting that many forums exist for expressing views, not all of which involve public demonstrations within Seattle.

The core of the Ninth Circuit's inquiry centered on the stringent requirements for prospective injunctive relief, particularly the need to demonstrate a concrete intent to engage in future activity within the specific jurisdiction. U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen, a Barack Obama appointee, acknowledged the sincerity of the group's beliefs but underscored the legal necessity for such a requirement when seeking an injunction. This legal standard demands more than a general commitment to activism; it requires a credible and specific intent to return to the challenged jurisdiction and face the alleged harm.

The city, for its part, maintained that its permitting process is constitutional, even if MayDay USA could somehow establish standing. This argument highlights the dual nature of such challenges: first, proving the right to bring the claim (standing), and second, proving the merits of the claim itself (the unconstitutionality of the scheme). The appellate discussion underscored that the group's fervent commitment to their cause, while noted by their attorney, did not automatically satisfy the legal threshold for demonstrating a future injury from the Seattle public event permitting scheme.

This case, focusing on Ninth Circuit Seattle event permit standing, offers crucial insights for organizations seeking to challenge municipal permitting schemes, especially those implicating First Amendment free speech rights. It reinforces the principle that merely having a history of activism or a strong philosophical commitment to speaking out is insufficient to establish standing for prospective injunctive relief. Litigants must demonstrate a concrete and credible intent to return to the specific jurisdiction and engage in the activity that would be affected by the challenged policy.

The appellate court's skepticism, particularly in the absence of specific plans for future events in Seattle, sets a high bar. It suggests that lawyers advising groups like MayDay USA on challenging municipal permitting schemes must ensure their clients can articulate a clear and imminent intention to conduct future activities within the jurisdiction. This requirement prevents courts from issuing advisory opinions and ensures that judicial resources are focused on actual, rather than hypothetical, controversies, even when allegations of "unbridled discretion permitting" are raised

Lawyers advising organizations on challenging municipal permitting schemes, particularly those involving First Amendment rights, must ensure their clients can demonstrate a credible and concrete intent to engage in future activity within the specific jurisdiction to establish standing for prospective injunctive relief. This case highlights the high bar for proving a 'credible risk of future enforcement' or intent to return, even for groups with a history of similar events.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service