[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11787 ____________________

YOUNG ISRAEL OF TAMPA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

Defendant-Appellant,

ADELEE LE GRAND, et al.,

Defendants. USCA11 Case: 22-11787 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2024 Page: 2 of 49

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11787

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-00294-VMC-CPT ____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and GRIMBERG, * District Judge. JORDAN, Circuit Judge: The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority has a policy which prohibits placing, on its vehicles and property, adver- tisements that “primarily promote a religious faith or religious or- ganization.” Young Israel of Tampa, Inc., an Orthodox Jewish syn- agogue, sued HART in federal court, alleging that its rejection of a proposed Chanukah on Ice advertisement was unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Young Israel on two grounds. First, HART’s policy violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it discrimi- nated on the basis of viewpoint. Second, even if HART’s policy was viewpoint neutral, it was unreasonable because it lacked ob- jective and workable standards and its application and enforcement were inconsistent and haphazard.

* The Honorable Steven D. Grimberg, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 22-11787 Document: 86-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2024 Page: 3 of 49

22-11787 Opinion of the Court 3

Based on these rulings, the district court permanently en- joined HART from rejecting any advertisement on the ground that it primarily promotes a religious faith or religious organization. The injunction covered not only HART’s current policy, but also any future policies. In its appeal, HART asks us to overturn the district court’s summary judgment order and hold that its policy prohibiting ad- vertisements that primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization is a permissible content (i.e., subject-matter) regula- tion of a nonpublic forum, and does not constitute improper view- point discrimination. We decline to answer this question of first impression—which has generated a small circuit split—because we affirm the district court’s alternative ruling that HART’s policy, even if viewpoint neutral, is unreasonable due to a lack of objective and workable standards. I At summary judgment, we review the record in the light most favorable to HART, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 47 F.4th 1278, 1328 (11th Cir. 2022). Having said that, the relevant facts in this case are largely undisputed. A HART, a public transit ag