Donald Trump's inauguration isn't for another two months, but there's already a court fight over where protests can take place along the route of the inaugural parade. The fight actually predates the election, but it has taken on a new dynamic after Trump's surprise victory. That's in part because the
parade will travel right past the Trump International Hotel. A federal appeals court this week heard arguments on a challenge to National Park Service regulations that give the president elects Inaugural Committee control over the sidewalk in front of the Trump Hotel, as well as some other places along the parade route. The challenge comes from would be demonstrators known as the Answer Coalition, and that stands for Act Now
to Stop War and End Racism. And that group says the space should be open to the public with us to discuss the issue. As one of our favorite guests, Eugene Volak, a law professor at the u c l a s. School of Law, Eugene, this is a long running legal fight. In the last ruling, Federal District Judge Judge Friedman sided with the government. Can you just give us the basics of of Judge Friedman said, sure. So basically people have a right to parade and protests and demonstrate.
But sometimes you have two organizations that want to have a parade, protest or demonstration in the same place. What do you do. In some situations there are rules that come up like first come, first servative, some sort or something along those lines. In this instance, the regulations a favor the essentially not quite the government, but a government chosen speaker, which is to say, uh, the inauguration committee uh.
And the theory being that this is a this is a parade that's organized for kind of governmental purposes, even if it's organized by a facially uh private organization, and that the government is entitled to say, look, we get preferential access to this so long as there are ample other places along the rade route where where other protesters can speak. And this kind of government preferential access for
speech is actually pretty commonplace. So, for example, when you're talking about things like posting posting signs either like road signs or traffic control signs, or or for that matter, just things that are posted along the street, um, the government often says, look, we're entitled to post things indicating a historic markers or directional signs or some sort of government public education or advocacy campaign. But it doesn't mean the rest of you guys can post it on what is,
after all, our property. It's a little more complicated when it comes to sidewalks. I'm sure viewed as traditional public for it. But even there, the senses of the government is entitled to say, look, uh, there is an event that we are holding here, and you can't hold your event in the same place we're holding ours. Eugene Court challenges to the localation of inaugural protests have been filed every four years since two thousand one, with differing results.
Why isn't there one set of results? Well, I think the problem is that, um, the legal rules end up being pretty fact sensitive. A lot depends on the particular restrictions that are out there. So, for example, the restrictions have to be narrowly tailored to the government interest in preserving the space for for its purposes and preventing undue crowding, preventing security problems, and also have to leave open ample
alternative channels. So much depends, uh, much depends on exactly what what space is prohibited in any particular uh uh particular protests or any particular parade route, and what why it's prohibited and what spaces allowed. Eugene, I think if you ask the average person, is the Augurabal Committee a public or a private organization, they would probably guess public um, But it is actually, as you said, a private organization. Uh. Does that make any any difference in the way this
case is analyzed. So it would have if it were a purely private organization. But given that it is something that is essentially fulfilling kind of a government related function. Uh, it's the courts of view is that in a sense, the speech is kind of government endorsed speech in a certain sense. Not necessarily the government agrees with every message that might be sent, but that more broadly, it is something that that the government. Maybe all governments have parades
and other such things to celebrate important political events. Uh that uh, that are in a sense authorized by the government in a special way, even if they are runs sometimes by nonprofits. Well so, so, what so when you analyze this under the First Amendment, Eugene, you know, to what degree do you have to think of this as a public forum? Well, it certainly is a public forum, and that is an important point. If this were an attempt to protest inside a government building, for example, a
classic example of a non public forum. The government could just say nope, we just don't allow any protests period um. And we can have our own people speaking in the building. We can have messages we favor on the wealth of the building, and you guys, the rest of you can't Um, I can't speak, Eugene. We're gonna have to Eugene. I'm afraid we're gonna have to leave it there. Uh. That is it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We will
be back tomorrow. Thanks to our technical director Reginald Basil and our producer Marks Sinnis Cauchi uh, and thank you to Eugene bak U c l A Law School, our last guest. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com. Coming up on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. Stay tuned for that. Stay tuned for that. Here on Bloomberg Radio, This is Bloomberg