Grace Christian Life v. Woodson et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/4/2016. (Hayes, Lyndsay)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
5:16-CV-202-D

)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
W. RANDOLPH WOODSON, Chancellor of )
North Carolina State University, in his
)
official and individual capacities;
)
WARWICK A. ARDEN, Provost and
)
Executive Vice Chancellor, in his official
)
and individual capacities; TJ WILLIS,
)
Associate Director of University Student
)
Centers, in his official and individual capacities; )
)
MIKE GIANCOLA, Associate Provost, in
his official and individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
GRACE CHRISTIAN LIFE, a registered
student organization at North Carolina State
University,
Plaintiff,

ORDER and
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

OnApri126, 2016, plaintiff filed its verified complaint seeking injunctive, declaratory and
monetary relief for the violation of its constitutional rights. See [D.E. 1]. On April 26, 2016,
plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction challenging defendants' Non-Commercial
Solicitation Policy contained within University REG 07.25.12 entitled "Solicitation." See [D.E. 4];
see also [D.E. 26-4] Ex. 3 (copy of policy). On May 23, 2016, defendants responded in opposition.
See [D.E. 25]. On May 31,2016, plaintiff replied. See [D.E. 27]. On Thursday, June 2, 2016, the
court held a hearing and considered the arguments of plaintiff and defendants concerning plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 3, 2016, each side made a supplemental submission.
Having considered the entire record and governing law, the court hereby issues the following
order:

1. For purposes of this order and preliminary injunction, the court adopts the factual
allegations in paragraphs 1-129 of plaintiff's verified complaint as its own findings of fact. See
[D.E. 1] ~~ 1-129.
2. The court has considered plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction under the
governing standard.

See,~'

Winterv. Nat. Res. Def. Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Centro

Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013) (en bane); Real Truth About
Obama. Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089
(20 10), reissued in relevant part, 607 F .3d 3 55 (4th Cir. 201 0) (per curiam). Plaintiffhas established
that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that North Carolina State University's NonCommercial Solicitation policy (including the permit requirement in the policy) facially violates the
First Amendment; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance
of the equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. See
Cox v. City of Charlesto!l, 416 F.3d 281, 283-87 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Ward v. Rock Against
Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799-803 (1989); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 n.5 (1981);
Niemotko v. State ofMd., 340 U.S. 268,271-72 (1951); Bowman v. White, 444 F.3d 967,972-73,
978-83 (8th Cir. 2006); Centro Tepeyac, 722 F.3d at 188-92; Knowles v. City of Waco, 462 F.3d
430,436 (5th Cir. 2006); ACLU v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438, 444 (4th Cir. 2005).
3. Defendants are enjoined from requiring any student, student group, or off-campus guest
sponsored by a student or student group to obtain a permit for Non-Commercial Solicitation as
currently required by University REG 07.25.12 entitled "Solicitation" on the North Carolina State
University campus, except that defendants may apply current University Housing Facilities
restrictions on Non-Commercial Solicitation to (A) require non-residents to obtain a permit before
distributing leaflets, brochures, or other written material in University Housing Facilities, and (B)

2

prohibit door-to-door solicitation in University Housing Facilities.
4. This order shall not prohibit defendants from prohibiting any student, student group, or
off-campus guest sponsored by a student or student group from engaging in Non-Commercial
Solicitation on campus which (1) substantially disrupts University activities and functions; (2)
violates any other applicable University policies; (3) obstructs building entrances, walkways, rightsof-way, or vehicular or pedestrian traffic on or adjacent to campus; or (4) interferes with educational
activities, meetings, events, or ceremonies or with other essential processes of the University.

5. Defendants shall not impose restrictions on any forms ofNon-Commercial Solicitation
because of the content or viewpoint ofthe expression or the possible reaction to the expression. See
Thomas v. Chi. Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316,323-24 (2002).

6. This order shall remain in place until further order of this court.
7. No bond is required.
SO ORDERED. This _A:_ day of June 2016.

J

S

C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge

3