American Freedom Defense Initiative et al v. Suburban Mobility Authority For Regional Transportation (SMART) et al

Filing 92

STIPULATED ORDER OF JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE
INITIATIVE; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:10-cv-12134-DPH-EAS
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY
for REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
(“SMART”), et al.,
Defendants.
STIPULATED ORDER OF JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)
P.O. Box 131098
Ann Arbor, MI 48113
[e-mail]
[phone]
David Yerushalmi, Esq.
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 189
Washington, D.C. 20006
[e-mail]
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiffs

SMART
Avery E. Gordon, Esq. (P41194)
535 Griswold Street, Suite 600
Detroit, MI 48226
[e-mail]
[phone]

VANDEVEER GARZIA, P.C.
Christian E. Hildebrandt (P46989)
1450 W. Long Lake Road,
Suite 100
Troy, MI 48098
[e-mail]
[phone]

Counsel for Defendants
__________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller, and Robert
Spencer (“Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, and Suburban
Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (“SMART”), John Hertel, and
Beth Gibbons (“Defendants”), by and through undersigned counsel, (collectively
the “parties”), hereby approve the entry of the attached Judgment.
In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:
1.

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of December 11, 2020 (Doc. No.

90), the Sixth Circuit’s unanimous decision in American Freedom Defense
Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority, 978 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2020), Rule
58(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and E.D. Mich. LR 58.1,
Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages,
and their reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees, as the prevailing
plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2.

More specifically, Plaintiffs are entitled to the entry of a

judgment in their favor as follows: (1) Declaratory Relief: a declaration that
Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech protected by the
First Amendment; a declaration that SMART’s restriction on “political”
advertising as set forth in its Advertising Guidelines is unreasonable in
violation of the First Amendment; and a declaration that SMART’s scorn-orridicule restriction as set forth in its Advertising Guidelines is viewpoint

based in violation of the First Amendment; (2) Injunctive Relief: an
injunction enjoining the challenged restrictions and their enforcement
against Plaintiffs’ “Leaving Islam” advertisement; (3) Nominal Damages: an
award of nominal damages in the amount of $3 ($1 per Plaintiff) for the loss
of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; and (4) Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $207,500.
Defendants hereby approve the form and content of the Judgment.
Respectfully submitted this 8th Day of January 2021.
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER

SMART

By: Robert J. Muise
Robert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)
David Yerushalmi, Esq.

By: Avery E. Gordon
Avery E. Gordon, Esq. (P41194)
VANDEVEER GARZIA, P.C.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
By: Christian E. Hildebrandt
Christian E. Hildebrandt (P46989)
Counsel for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE
INITIATIVE; et al.,

No. 2:10-cv-12134-DPH-EAS
Hon. Denise Page Hood

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT

v.
SUBURBAN MOBILITY
AUTHORITY for REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION (“SMART”), et
al.,
Defendants.

This action comes before the Court on remand from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which rendered its opinion in American Freedom
Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority, 978 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2020).
Based on the opinion of the Sixth Circuit,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendants and denying summary judgment to Plaintiffs
(Doc No. 83) is REVERSED and judgment is hereby entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on
their First Amendment claims.
Accordingly, the Court hereby declares that, pursuant to the opinion of the
Sixth Circuit, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech protected
by the First Amendment. The Court further declares, consistent with the Sixth
1

Circuit opinion, that SMART’s Advertising Guidelines restricting “political”
advertisements and advertisements “likely to hold up to scorn or ridicule any
person or group of persons” violate the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment and are hereby enjoined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in addition to
declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages in the
amount of $3.00 and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the
amount of $207,500.00.
So Ordered.
Dated: February 17, 2021

s/Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge

2