Yesterday, Judge David Herrera Urias ruled in the case of Leadership Institute v. Stokes (D.N.M.):
Kenna Fleig, co-president of TP-UNM, submitted an event request form stating that TP-UNM anticipated around 100 attendees for a 3.5-hour event. The form mentioned that the speaker, Riley Gaines, had her own security detail, and the students did not require additional security. A week later, UNM informed TP-UNM that they must request and accept university security. Defendant Stump of the UNM police department provided the students with an invoice for security costs totaling $10,202.50. This quote was for all thirty-three officers employed by UNM, nearly one officer for every three expected attendees. When asked why every officer was assigned to the event, Defendant Stump stated it was based on individual assessments and that there was no specific criteria.
He mentioned that if an organization were to screen a movie on campus, they likely would not require any officers because they were not concerned about it. He highlighted past events by TP-UNM featuring conservative speakers that led to protests at UNM. Defendant Stump reiterated that security fees were assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Gaines spoke at the UNM campus on October 4th from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to a crowd of approximately 200 people. The event was open to the public with free tickets. Only a few protestors arrived after the event started and peacefully demonstrated outside. No police intervention was necessary.
Following the event, on October 9, Defendant Stump issued a final invoice to TP-UNM totaling $5,384.75. The invoice detailed that twenty-seven officers were present for a total of 95.25 hours, with only four stationed inside the venue. The rest were located in different areas of the building or nearby buildings, with some patrolling outdoor areas on bikes or stationed on a nearby rooftop.
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992) established that the government cannot impose additional security fees for speech in traditional public forums based on the content of the speech. This ruling also applies to public universities:
The court found that the security fee policy used by UNM was overly broad, as it left the decision of security charges to the discretion of university officials without clear guidelines. The policy lacked specific standards for determining security costs based on venue size, event timing, or other relevant factors. Despite stating a schedule of charges on their website, no actual breakdown of these charges was provided. The policy gave UNM administrators broad discretion in assessing security fees, leading to potential content-based discrimination.
This decision is significant as it prevents discrimination based not only on content but also on viewpoint. For a similar ruling, refer to Sonnier v. Crain (5th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin Isgur, Braden Boucek, and Carter B. Harrison, IV of Southeastern Legal Foundation.
