"The only permit we need to speak to our fellow citizens is the First Amendment," said Nate Kellum, a Memphis, Tenn., attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, who argued the winning case. "We don't need to go through the bureaucratic nightmare of securing a governmental permit just to hand out literature, hold up a sign or engage in conversation."
Kellum's client, Michael Boardley, tried to hand out religious material in a "free-speech area" of Mount Rushmore National Memorial, in South Dakota, in 2007, but was stopped by a park ranger because he lacked a permit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday ruled that park regulations requiring a permit for someone to engage in "expressive activities" are "antithetical" to a "core First Amendment principle."
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, which argued on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, can appeal the decision by petitioning the court for this case to be heard before the full appellate court, or it can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case.
Yesterday, Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., said that the government is studying the opinion and "has not made a decision on its next step."
Meanwhile, it was not immediately clear what would happen if a person or small group held a peaceful rally at Independence Mall, in Center City, or at Valley Forge National Historical Park without a permit.
Jane Cowley, Independence National Historical Park spokeswoman, said that she was not yet familiar with the Boardley case and could not comment on it.
Barbara Pollarine, deputy superintendent at Valley Forge, said yesterday that policies won't be changed until word comes from Washington.
Cowley and Pollarine said that in their years of working at the parks, they have never known of a permit being denied. Denial cannot be based on the content of the speech or literature, they said.
