Center for Investigative Reporting v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

Public transit system refuses to allow a nonprofit investigative news organization to advertise a report on racial disparities in mortgage lending.

Court/Assoc.: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Attorneys/Firms: Mary Catherine Roper & Molly Tack-Hooper (ACLU of Pennsylvania); Brian Hauss & Jacob Hutt (ACLU Speech, Privacy, & Technology Project); John S. Stapleton, Dylan J. Steinberg, and Rebecca Santoro Melley (Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller); Seth F. Kreimer, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School; and D. Victoria Baranetsky, General Counsel of The Center for Investigative Reporting.

On May 2, 2018, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and co-counsel filed a federal lawsuit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) over its refusal to allow The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) to advertise on SEPTA’s vehicles.

CIR, the nation’s first nonprofit investigative news organization, sought to advertise reporting from CIR’s news site, Reveal, which analyzed 31 million public records made available through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and found dramatic racial disparities in the conventional home mortgage market in 61 areas across the country, including Philadelphia. CIR’s proposed ad would have featured an informative graphic showcasing the public data that CIR’s journalists collected and CIR’s analysis of that data.

SEPTA rejected CIR’s proposal, citing two provisions of SEPTA’s advertising policy, which ban ads that are “political in nature” in that they directly or indirectly implicate government action or policy, and ads that express an “opinion, position, or viewpoint on matters of public debate.”

The lawsuit alleges that SEPTA’s bans on “political” ads and ads that touch on “matters of public debate” violate the First Amendment in several ways. Among other legal theories, CIR argues that the provisions are unconstitutionally vague, giving officials broad, standardless discretion to censor protected speech, and that they discriminate based on viewpoint by censoring controversial speech. On September 25, Judge Baylson denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice and scheduled the case for trial on October 1, 2018.  After trial, he scheduled final oral argument in the case for November 1, 2018 at 1pm in courtroom 3A of the federal courthouse in Philadelphia.   


Legal Documents

Press Release

WebSanity Top Secret