In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________

AUGUST TERM 2022

ARGUED: OCTOBER 27, 2022 DECIDED: JULY 18, 2023

No. 22-664-cv

RASHIDA TYLER, ANNE AMES, BEETLE BAILEY, PHILIP ERNER, RACHEL GANS, KATRINA HOUSER, LISA ROYER, AMANDA SISENSTEIN, KIM WHEELER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF KINGSTON,

Defendant-Appellee. ________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. ________ Before: WALKER, LEE, AND ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. ________

Plaintiffs-Appellants bring a First Amendment challenge to the City of Kingston’s prohibition against bringing signs and posters into public meetings of the Common Council held at Kingston City Hall. No. 22-664-cv

The City moved to dismiss, arguing that Common Council meetings are limited public fora in which the City is permitted to reasonably restrict speech that undermines the purpose for which the forum had been opened. The district court granted the City’s motion, noting that government entities are permitted to regulate the manner in which the public participates in limited public fora. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the City’s sign prohibition was unreasonable in light of the potential disruption or distraction that signs at Common Council meetings might pose. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. ________

STEPHEN BERGSTEIN, Bergstein & Ullrich LLP, New Paltz, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

MICHAEL T. COOK, Cook, Netter, Cloonan, Kurtz & Murphy, P.C., Kingston, NY, for Defendant- Appellee. ________ JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-Appellants bring a First Amendment challenge to the City of Kingston’s prohibition against bringing signs and posters into public meetings of the Common Council held at Kingston City Hall. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that Common Council meetings are limited public fora in which the City is permitted to reasonably restrict speech that undermines the purpose for which the forum had been opened. The district court granted the City’s motion, noting that government entities are permitted to regulate the manner in which the public participates in limited public fora. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the City’s sign prohibition was unreasonable in light of the potential disruption

2 No. 22-664-cv

or distraction that signs at Common Council meetings might pose. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND I. Factual Background 1

Plaintiffs—Anne Ames, Beetle Bailey, Philip Erner, Rachel Gans, Katrina Houser, Lisa Royer, Amanda Sisenstein, Rashida Tyler, and Kim Wheeler—are nine political and community activists affiliated with “Rise Up Kingston” and “Wednesday Walks 4 Black Lives,” organizations “focused on police misconduct and diversity issues.” J. App’x at 8.

On August 3, 2021, the Kingston Common Council was scheduled to hold a public meeting at Kingston City Hall to discuss whether the City would purchase an armored rescue vehicle. Eight of the Plaintiffs—that is, all Plaintiffs except Philip Erner—planned to attend the meeting to protest the proposed purchase, and they br