Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 94 MORIAH DEMARTINO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND v. Plaintiff, PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, AUSTIN S. ABRAHAM, CAROLYN W. BROOKS, MERLE S. ELLIOTT, L. WILLIAM PROCTOR, JR., GREGORY I. SNOOK, and JOHN D. WILLIAMSON, all individually and all in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of Hagerstown Community College, DR. GUY ALTIERI, President of Hagerstown Community College, in his official and individual capacities; DR. JESSICA CHAMBERS, Dean of Student Affairs for Hagerstown Community College, in her official and individual capacities; CHRISTINA KILDUFF, Vice President of Administration and Finance for Hagerstown Community College, in her official capacity, HEATHER BARNHART, Coordinator of Student Activities for Hagerstown Community College, in her official and individual capacities, HENRY GAUTNEY, Chief of Police at Hagerstown Community College, in his official and individual capacities. Case No. 15 CV 03134 SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT Defendants. Plaintiff Moriah DeMartino, by and through counsel, and for her Second Amended Verified Complaint against the Defendants, hereby states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The cornerstone of higher education is the ability of students to participate in the marketplace of ideas on campus. That marketplace depends on free and vigorous debate between
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 94 students debate that is spontaneous, ubiquitous, and often anonymous and is carried out through spoken word, flyers, signs, and displays. 2. This case arises from policies and practices of Hagerstown Community College ( HCC ) and public officials employed by HCC that restrict the expressive rights of students and student organizations. 3. Although HCC encourages free discourse and debate by students on campus, it uses its Solicitation Policy to restrict student speech by requiring that students obtain the express written consent of the Dean of Student Affairs or designee before they may engage in protected speech activities. 4. The Solicitation Policy chills protected student speech and disables the ability of students to speak spontaneously on campus about recent and unfolding events. 5. Although HCC encourages the formation of student groups and recognizes the benefits of such groups, HCC s policies and practices related to the formation of student groups unconstitutionally infringe upon students First Amendment rights of free speech and association. 6. In August, 2015, Ms. DeMartino requested permission to establish a chapter of Turning Point USA ( TPUSA ) at HCC. 7. HCC denied Ms. DeMartino s request to establish a TPUSA club because the mission of TPUSA duplicates the mission of the already existing Political Science Club. 8. Shortly after the denial, Ms. DeMartino was in an outside, open area of HCC s campus talking with other students about HCC s denial of her request to form a TPUSA club and obtaining signatures of students interested in becoming members of a TPUSA club. 9. While Ms. DeMartino was engaged in these speech activities, the HCC police chief approached Ms. DeMartino and informed her that she was violating the Solicitation Policy because she had not obtained prior written consent from HCC. 2
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 94 10. The police chief instructed Ms. DeMartino that she must immediately stop engaging in the speech activities. 11. This action is premised on the United States Constitution and concerns the denial of Ms. DeMartino s fundamental rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection of law. 12. The Solicitation Policy, student group policies, and related practices are challenged on their face and as applied to Ms. DeMartino. 13. Defendants policies and practices have deprived and will continue to deprive Ms. DeMartino of her paramount rights and guarantees under the United States Constitution. 14. Each and every act of Defendants alleged herein was committed by Defendants, each and every one of them, under the color of state law and authority. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983. 16. This Court has original jurisdiction over these federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. 17. This Court has authority to award the requested damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343; the requested declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-02; the requested injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; and costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. 18. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the Defendants reside in this district and all of the acts described in this Complaint occurred in this district. PLAINTIFF 19. Plaintiff Moriah DeMartino is a student at HCC. 20. In August 2015, Ms. DeMartino requested permission to form a Turning Point USA student chapter at HCC. HCC denied the request. 3
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 94 21. TPUSA is a national, non-partisan organization with chapters at public and private universities throughout the country. 22. TPUSA s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize conservative students to promote the conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government. TPUSA does not promote and/or endorse political candidates. 23. Ms. DeMartino and TPUSA desire to express their message on HCC s campus through a variety of means including flyers, signs, peaceful demonstrations, hosting tables with information, inviting speakers to campus, and talking with fellow students about fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government, among other things. 24. When engaging in these expressive activities, Ms. DeMartino and TPUSA will discuss political, religious, social, cultural, and moral issues and ideas. DEFENDANTS 25. Defendants Patricia K. Cushwa, Austin S. Abraham, Carolyn W. Brooks, Merle S. Elliott, L. William Proctor, Jr., Gregory I. Snook, and John D. Williamson are, and were at all times relevant to this Complaint, members of the Board of Trustees of Hagerstown Community College (hereinafter collectively, Trustee Defendants ), a public community college organized and existing under the laws of Maryland, and are responsible for, among other things, the adoption and authorization of policies that govern students at HCC, including the Solicitation Policy and the policies and procedures challenged herein that were applied in rejecting Ms. DeMartino s application to form a TPUSA group. 26. Each of the Trustee Defendants is responsible for enactment, amendment, and repeal of Board of Trustees policies that govern students speech activities on campus and the formation of student groups at HCC. Each of these defendants acquiesces in, sanctions, and supports the actions of the other Defendants in enforcing the policies, and procedures regarding students speech activities on campus and formation of student organizations. Each of the Trustee Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. 4
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 94 27. Defendant Dr. Guy Altieri is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, the President of HCC, a public community college organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 28. The Board of Trustees has designated the HCC President as the chief executive officer and administrative head of HCC. 29. Defendant Altieri is responsible for implementation and enforcement of College policies, including the Solicitation Policy and the student group policies challenged herein, and their application to student speech. 30. Defendant Altieri is responsible for enforcement of the Solicitation Policy and the student group policies by HCC employees. 31. Defendant Altieri is sued in his official and individual capacities. 32. Defendant Dr. Jessica Chambers is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, the Dean of Student Affairs at HCC, a public community college organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 33. Defendant Chambers, in consultation with Defendants Altieri and Kilduff, is responsible for the administration, interpretation, and oversight of HCC policies, including the Solicitation Policy and the student group policies challenged herein, and their application to student speech. 34. Defendant Chambers possesses the authority to approve or reject requests to speak or use campus facilities for speech by students and the authority to approve or reject requests to form new student groups at HCC. 35. Defendant Chambers participated in enforcing HCC s student group policies against Ms. DeMartino when she applied to form a TPUSA student group at HCC and Chambers participated in applying HCC s Solicitation Policy against Ms. DeMartino. 36. Defendant Chambers has not changed or altered the Solicitation Policy or the student group policies to comply with constitutional mandates. 5
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 94 37. Defendant Chambers is sued in her official and individual capacities. 38. Defendant Christina Kilduff is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, the Vice President of Administration and Finance at HCC, a public community college organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 39. Defendant Kilduff, in consultation with Defendants Altieri and Chambers, is responsible for the administration, interpretation, and oversight of HCC policies, including the Solicitation Policy and the student group policies challenged herein, and their application to student speech. 40. Defendant Kilduff has not changed or altered the Solicitation Policy or the student group policies to comply with constitutional mandates. 41. Defendant Kilduff is sued in her official capacity. 42. Defendant Heather Barnhart is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, the Director of Student Activities at HCC, a public community college organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 43. Defendant Barnhart possesses the authority to approve or reject requests to form new student groups at HCC. 44. Defendant Barnhart participated in enforcing HCC s student group policies against Ms. DeMartino when she applied to form a TPUSA student group at HCC. 45. Defendant Barnhart is sued in her individual and official capacities. 46. Defendant Henry Gautney is, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, the Chief of Police at HCC, a public community college organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. 47. Defendant Gautney possesses the authority to enforce HCC s policies, including the Solicitation Policy challenged herein. 48. Defendant Gautney participated in enforcing HCC s Solicitation Policy against Ms. DeMartino when she attempted to speak freely in the outdoor areas of HCC s campus. 6
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 94 49. Defendant Gautney is sued in his individual and official capacities. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 50. HCC is a community college located in Hagerstown, Maryland. 51. HCC receives funding from the State of Maryland to operate. 52. HCC s campus is approximately 180 acres, which is approximately 7,834,836 square feet of land. A Google Maps satellite view of HCC s main campus is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint. 53. HCC s campus is composed of various publicly-accessible buildings and outdoor areas, including public streets, sidewalks, open-air quadrangles, park-like lawns, and open space where expressive activity will not interfere with or disturb HCC s educational environment or access to buildings and sidewalks. A copy of HCC s main campus map is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint. 54. The Trustee Defendants created Board Policy 8068, the Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstration Policy. 55. HCC s Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstrations Policy encourages the exchange of ideas by students, faculty and staff in a community forum. A copy of HCC s Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstration Policy is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Complaint. 56. HCC recognizes and supports the rights of free expression and speech. Ex. 3. 57. In fact, every member of the College has an obligation to permit free expression. Ex. 3. 58. Pursuant to the Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstration Policy, the Trustee Defendants established HCC as a designated public forum for student expression. 59. HCC recognizes that organized student groups are a valuable part of the student educational environment, because they further HCC s educational mission. 60. HCC encourages its students to participate in student groups through various methods, including posting flyers at various locations around the campus. One flyer used by HCC to encourage participation in student groups included the following language: Find your fit by joining a campus 7
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 94 club! Check out the HCC website to view the active clubs on campus Don t see one that fits you, start your own! Visit the Student Activities Office for more information. A copy of the flyer is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4. 61. HCC policy provides for the official recognition of student groups. 62. Among other things, the benefits of official recognition include access to funding, free use and reservation of campus facilities, soliciting students, and posting flyers. 63. All recognized student organizations must adhere to HCC s policies and procedures. Defendants Solicitation Policy 64. HCC regulates student oral, written, and symbolic speech through Board Policy 8069, the Solicitation Policy. A copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Complaint. 65. The Trustee Defendants created the Solicitation Policy. 66. The Dean of Student Affairs, Defendant Chambers, and Vice President of Administration and Finance, Defendant Kilduff, are the institutional officials responsible for the administration, interpretation, and oversight of the Solicitation Policy. Ex. 5. 67. The stated purpose of the Solicitation Policy is to (1) preserve the College s right to permit or prohibit sales and solicitation activities on College property, and (2) to protect the campus community from sales and solicitation activities that are intrusive, unrelated to the educational purpose, or incompatible with normal operations. Ex. 5. 68. The Solicitation Policy applies to all HCC students, student groups, faculty, staff, and members of the public. Ex. 5. 69. The Solicitation Policy applies to all solicitation activities conducted on the grounds or within buildings under the control of HCC, including solicitation using HCC s electronic mail network. Ex. 5. 8
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 94 70. The Solicitation Policy defines solicitation to include the activity or process of seeking to obtain the support of an individual for a cause, movement, doctrine, or commercial product through persuasion or formal application. Ex. 5. 71. The Solicitation Policy provides that [a]pproved solicitation activities must be substantially and directly related to the College s mission and vision. Ex. 5. 72. The Solicitation Policy further provides that [a]pproval for solicitation and sales activity will only be considered if certain criteria are satisfied, including the following: (1) provide a general positive value to the quality of student life and the College mission or provides support that will benefit an active non-profit organization in the community; (2) do not contradict HCC s Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstration policy; (3) must align with institutional initiatives and goals; and (4) do not undermine the academic integrity of the College. Ex. 5. 73. The Solicitation Policy provides that solicitation by students or student organizations on College property are prohibited without the express written consent of the Dean of Student Affairs or designee. Ex. 5. 74. Ms. DeMartino and her fellow students and student organizations may only engage in protected speech activities, such as seeking to obtain the support of a fellow student for a cause, movement, or doctrine, if they first obtain the express written consent of Defendant Chambers. 75. The Solicitation Policy does not provide a means for students to speak spontaneously on campus about a cause, movement, or doctrine. 76. The Solicitation Policy further provides that the students speech must (1) provide a general positive value to the quality of student life and the College mission or provides support that will benefit an active non-profit organization in the community; (2) not contradict HCC s Free Speech and Peaceful Demonstration policy; (3) align with institutional initiatives and goals; and (4) not undermine the academic integrity of the College. Ex. 5. 9
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 94 77. The Solicitation Policy permits administrators like Defendant Chambers to consider the viewpoint being expressed by a student or student organization requesting permission to speak to ensure the speech will not violate the criteria established by the Solicitation Policy. Ex. 5. 78. The Solicitation Policy does not provide any objective criteria for Defendant Chambers or her designee to use when deciding whether to approve or reject a student s request to speak on campus. 79. The Solicitation Policy does not limit the discretion of Defendant Chambers or her designee when deciding whether to approve or reject a student s request to speak on campus. 80. Students or student organizations that violate the Solicitation Policy will be subject to disciplinary action under HCC policies. Defendants Student Group Policy 81. HCC regulates student groups through various policies. 82. The Trustee Defendants created Board Policy 4036, Student Activities Policy. A copy of Board Policy 4036 is attached as Exhibit 6 to this Complaint. 83. Board Policy 4036 encourages students to form student organizations and clubs on campus. 84. Board Policy 4036 requires student clubs to be officially recognized through established administrative procedures at HCC. 85. HCC s administrative procedures, which govern the formation of student clubs are set forth in HCC s Club Guide (collectively referred to as the Student Group Policy ). A copy of HCC s Club Guide is attached as Exhibit 7 to this Complaint. 86. The Dean of Student Affairs, Defendant Chambers, and Coordinator of Student Activities, Defendant Barnhart, are the institutional officials responsible for the administration, interpretation, and oversight of the Student Group Policy. Ex. 7, at 4. 10
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 94 87. The Club Guide states that the first step to create a new club on campus is to research existing clubs to be sure the purpose and goals are not duplicated. Ex. 7, at 4. 88. The next steps in forming a student club are (1) find a full or part time HCC faculty or staff member to be a club advisor ; (2) find at least three student members who will act as officers ; and (3) complete the application materials (application, constitution, budget) and submit to the Student Activities Coordinator. Ex. 7, at 4. 89. After the application is submitted, the application will be evaluated by Defendants Chambers and Barnhart. In evaluating the application, [c]onsideration will be given to the value of the club as it relates to student development, safety concerns or potential liability for the College, and the mission of HCC. Ex. 7, at 4. 90. Student clubs that are recognized by HCC receive many benefits, including funding through the Student Government Association for event and activities, free use of college facilities for meetings and events, and free use of college vehicles for transportation to off-campus events. Ex. 7, at 4. 91. It is the policy of HCC to grant administrators like Defendants Chambers and Barnhart unbridled discretion to discriminate against the formation of a student club if the proposed club is similar to an existing club or advocates a view that is not represented from the opposite perspective. 92. The Student Group Policy permits administrators like Defendants Chambers and Barnhart to consider the viewpoint being expressed by a student organization requesting recognition to ensure the group s purpose satisfies the criteria established by the Student Group Policy. 93. The Student Group Policy does not provide any objective, non-viewpoint-based criteria for Defendants Chambers or Barnhart to use when deciding whether to approve or reject a student s request to form a new student organization. 94. The Student Group Policy does not limit the discretion of Defendants Chambers or Barnhart when deciding whether to approve or reject a student s request to form a new student group. 11
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 94 95. The Student Group Policy does not require HCC officials to provide written justification for their decision to grant or deny a request for form a student club, nor does the policy provide an appeal process. Defendants Violation of Ms. DeMartino s Freedom of Speech and Association 96. Ms. DeMartino is an active member of TPUSA. As a member of TPUSA, Ms. DeMartino wants to get involved with a student club that advocates for the principles held by TPUSA. 97. As instructed by HCC s flyer (see Ex. 4), Ms. DeMartino looked at the current list of student clubs at HCC and determined that none of the current clubs advocated for the principles held by TPUSA. 98. Accordingly, in August 2015, Ms. DeMartino spoke with Defendant Barnhart about her desire to form a TPUSA chapter at HCC. 99. On August 17, 2015, Defendant Barnhart informed Ms. DeMartino by e-mail that she would not be allowed to form a TPUSA chapter at HCC. Ms. Barnhart did not provide a reason for denying Ms. DeMartino s request to form a TPUSA club. A copy of the e-mail is attached as Exhibit 8 to the Complaint. 100. Although Ms. DeMartino did not request to start a Republican club, Defendant Barnhart further stated in her e-mail that Ms. DeMartino would be allowed to start a Republican club but only if a Democrat club was started at the same time. Ex. 8. 101. After receiving the e-mail, Ms. DeMartino met with Defendant Barnhart in person to determine why she would not allow Ms. DeMartino to form a TPUSA club. 102. Defendant Barnhart told Ms. DeMartino that she denied the club because it was a conservative organization. 103. Ms. DeMartino informed Defendant Barnhart that TPUSA is a non-partisan club and was not affiliated with any particular political party. 12
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 94 104. When Defendant Barnhart learned that TPUSA is a non-partisan organization, she told Ms. DeMartino that she may be allowed to form TPUSA as a chapter of the Political Science Club. 105. While Ms. DeMartino was in her office, Defendant Barnhart called Professor Eric Schwartz, the faculty sponsor of the Political Science Club, to discuss the formation of a TPUSA chapter. 106. Professor Schwartz indicated that he was just getting ready to have a meeting with the President of the Political Science Club and he invited Ms. DeMartino to accompany him to the meeting. 107. Ms. DeMartino attended the meeting with Professor Schwartz and the President of the Political Science Club. 108. Professor Schwartz asked Ms. DeMartino about the purposes and beliefs of TPUSA. Ms. DeMartino showed Professor Schwartz some of TPUSA s educational material, including pamphlets entitled Capitalism Cures, 10 Ways Big Government Harms You, The Game of Loans, and the The Healthcare Games. 109. Professor Schwartz reviewed the pamphlets and commented that the pamphlets contained very clear political ideologies. Professor Schwartz then stated that he did not think that he would agree to forming a TPUSA club because of TPUSA s views but did like the idea of forming both a Young Republicans and Young Democrats chapters within the Political Science Club. 110. On August 26, 2015, Campus Reform, a news website that reports on bias and abuse on the nation s college campuses, ran a story on HCC s refusal to allow Ms. DeMartino to form a TPUSA club. 111. In response to the story, Defendant Chambers sent a letter to Lauren Houck, a correspondent for Campus Reform. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 9 to the Complaint. 112. In the letter, Defendant Chambers states that Ms. DeMartino s request to form a TPUSA club does not meet the necessary requirement to allow my approval for the club s formation. Ex. 9. 13
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 94 113. Defendant Chambers states that her decision to deny the application is based on several things. The first reason given is that TPUSA s mission and purpose are duplicative of the Political Science Club at HCC: After further review of the mission, purpose, and activities of the Political Science Club, I have determined that both Republicans and Democrats, as well as any other political parties, are able to be fairly represented as members of the currently existing club, without the creation of any additional clubs. Ex. 9. 114. Defendant Chambers states that her decision is further supported by board-approved policies that guide student services and student life on campus. Ex. 9. 115. Defendant Chambers concludes her letter by encouraging Ms. DeMartino to seek active participation in HCC s Political Science Club. Ex. 9. 116. HCC s Student Group Policy and Defendants enforcement of such policy against Ms. DeMartino burdens her freedom of speech and association for multiple reasons. 117. Ms. DeMartino desires to form a TPUSA student group to engage in speech and associate with other like-minded students that share TPUSA s values of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government. 118. The mission and purpose of Ms. DeMartino and TPUSA are distinctly different from the Political Science Club whose purpose is, according to Defendant Chambers, to further educate and expose its members to the principles of political science in a true objective manner with respect to all student rights. Ex. 9. 119. Ms. DeMartino wants to form a TPUSA student group to engage in speech and expressive activities but has been denied the ability to do so as a result of Defendants policies and actions. 120. Ms. DeMartino desires to spread her political beliefs and those of TPUSA in reaction to current events. 14
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 94 121. By denying her application to form a TPUSA student group, Ms. DeMartino s speech and association have been burdened and she has been treated differently than other students because (1) she is not eligible for student fee funding for group activities, (2) she cannot use HCC s facilities free of charge for group meetings, and (3) she cannot use HCC s vehicles to attend off-campus group functions or events. 122. Ms. DeMartino has refrained from engaging in certain oral, written, and symbolic speech on political and cultural topics on campus due to the Student Group Policy and Defendants denial of her application to form a TPUSA student group. 123. Ms. DeMartino is chilled in her ability to discuss political and cultural topics on campus due to the Student Group Policy. 124. If not for the Student Group Policy, Ms. DeMartino would have formed a TPUSA student group and conveyed her messages about politics, culture, and social issues. 125. Specifically, Ms. DeMartino would have solicited students to join the TPUSA student group but has refrained from doing so because Defendants refused to allow TPUSA to be a recognized student group at HCC. 126. Defendants actions severely limited Ms. DeMartino s constitutionally-protected expression on campus. 127. Defendants have also applied the Student Group Policy in a viewpoint discriminatory manner because they have granted recognition to other student groups that have duplicative missions and purposes. 128. Defendants have granted recognition to both the National Organization for Women student group and the Spectrum Club. The stated purposes of both clubs include recognizing and promoting the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender students. A description of the clubs purposes is attached as Exhibit 10 to the Complaint. 15
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 94 129. Defendants have also granted recognition to both the STEM Club and the Information Technology Association. The stated purposes of both clubs include preparing members for careers within the technology fields. Ex. 10. 130. By declaring that HCC already has a Political Science club that advocates a message, and denying Ms. DeMartino s application to form a TPUSA group that expresses a conservative political message, Defendants Chambers and Barnhart committed viewpoint discrimination. 131. By promulgating and enforcing a Student Group Policy that allows HCC administrators to deny a club application based on the viewpoint it expresses, the Trustee Defendants and Defendants Altieri, Chambers, and Barnhart committed viewpoint discrimination. 132. Defendants denial of Ms. DeMartino s application to form a TPUSA student group violated her First Amendment rights of speech and association because it was based upon the viewpoint that Ms. DeMartino desired to express through the formation of the TPUSA group. Defendants Violation of Ms. DeMartino s Freedom of Speech 133. On September 2, 2015, Ms. DeMartino decided that she wanted to discuss HCC s denial of her application to form a TPUSA student group with other HCC students and request that they sign a petition supporting the formation of the TPUSA student group. 134. Ms. DeMartino invited Helen Heath, a representative of TPUSA, to accompany her on campus. 135. For approximately two hours, Ms. DeMartino and Ms. Heath spoke with students and obtained signatures on Ms. DeMartino s petition in an outdoor area of the HCC campus between the Learning Support Center and the Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics building. See, Ex. 2 (campus map). 136. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Ms. DeMartino and Ms. Heath took a break from their expressive activities and sat down at a picnic table in the Student Circle. Ms. DeMartino and Ms. Heath were then joined by Nick Glad, a representative of the Leadership Institute. 16
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 94 137. After approximately fifteen minutes sitting at the picnic table, they were approached by Defendant Gautney, HCC s chief of police, and Beth Kirkpatrick, HCC s Director of Public Information and Government Relations. 138. Defendant Gautney stated that they were violating the Solicitation Policy by speaking with other students in the public, open areas of campus because they had not obtained prior permission from Defendant Chambers. 139. Defendant Gautney ordered them to stop their expressive activities and further ordered Mr. Glad and Ms. Heath to immediately leave the campus. 140. Though Ms. DeMartino thought Defendant Gautney s order was unjust and unconstitutional, Ms. DeMartino complied with his order to stop talking with other students on HCC s campus. 141. On September 2, 2015, HCC issued a press release acknowledging that Defendant Gautney had ordered Ms. DeMartino to stop engaging in her speech activities because she had not obtained prior permission as required by the Solicitation Policy. A copy of the press release is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 11. 142. On October 20, 2015, HCC issued another press release addressing its refusal to allow Ms. DeMartino to form a TPUSA student group and the incident in which Ms. DeMartino was ordered to stop conducting speech activities on HCC s campus. A copy of the press release is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 12. 143. HCC s policies indicates that Ms. DeMartino would expose herself to a range of disciplinary actions, including suspension or dismissal, if she engaged in expressive activities in the open, outdoor areas of the HCC campus without first obtaining the written consent of Defendant Chambers. 144. HCC s Solicitation Policy and Defendants enforcement of such policy against Ms. DeMartino burdens her speech for multiple reasons. 17
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 94 145. Ms. DeMartino wants to engage in expressive activities without obtaining Defendants express written consent, but has refrained from doing so for fear of punishment. 146. Ms. DeMartino wants to engage in speech containing political and social messages while she stands on public ways and open areas on HCC s campus. 147. The permit requirement, in and of itself, is unduly burdensome as it requires the express written consent of Defendant Chambers prior to engaging in speech on campus. 148. The permit requirement means that Ms. DeMartino may not engage in spontaneous or anonymous speech on campus. 149. Ms. DeMartino desires to spread her political beliefs and those of TPUSA in reaction to current events. 150. The Solicitation Policy closes the entire HCC campus to speech activity by Ms. DeMartino and her peers, unless they first get permission to speak. 151. Ms. DeMartino is bound to comply with the terms of the Solicitation Policy at all times on campus. 152. Ms. DeMartino has not engaged in oral, written, and symbolic speech on political and cultural topics on campus due to the Solicitation Policy. 153. Ms. DeMartino is chilled in her ability to discuss political and cultural topics on campus due to the Solicitation Policy. 154. If not for the Solicitation Policy, Ms. DeMartino would have spoken numerous times in the open areas of HCC s campus and conveyed her messages about politics, culture, and social issues. 155. Specifically, Ms. DeMartino would have solicited students to join the TPUSA student group. Ms. DeMartino has refrained from doing so for fear of arrest or punishment under the Solicitation Policy. 156. The fear of arrest or punishment severely limited Ms. DeMartino s constitutionallyprotected expression on campus. 18
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 19 of 94 ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 157. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each and all of the acts and policies alleged herein were attributed to the Defendants who acted under color of a statute, regulation, custom, or usage of the State of Maryland. 158. Defendants knew or should have known that by prohibiting all expressive activities of students, including Ms. DeMartino, except with the prior written consent of Defendant Chambers, Defendants were and are violating Ms. DeMartino s constitutional rights. 159. Defendants knew or should have known that by denying Ms. DeMartino s application to form a TPUSA student group that Defendants were and are violating her constitutional rights. 160. Ms. DeMartino is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants Solicitation Policy and Student Group Policy. 161. Ms. DeMartino has no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivation of her rights by Defendants. 162. Unless the conduct of Defendants, the Solicitation Policy, and the Student Group Policy, are enjoined, Ms. DeMartino will continue to suffer irreparable injury. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech Denial of TPUSA Student Group (42 U.S.C. 1983) 163. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint. 164. Speech is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. 165. Political speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. 166. The First Amendment rights of free speech extend to campuses of state colleges. 167. The sidewalks and open spaces of HCC s campus are designated public forums if not traditional public forums for speech and expressive activities by students enrolled at HCC. 19
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 20 of 94 168. HCC s Student Group Policy and practice create a designated public forum for students by inviting them to create student organizations on campus. 169. The First Amendment s Free Speech Clause, incorporated and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits content and viewpoint discrimination in the public forums for student speech and expression on the campus of a public college. 170. A public college s ability to restrict speech particularly student speech in a public forum is limited. 171. The First Amendment s Free Speech Clause prohibits censorship of political expression. 172. Under the First Amendment s Free Speech Clause, a prior restraint on citizens expression is presumptively unconstitutional, unless it (1) does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, (2) contains only content and viewpoint neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, (3) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (4) leaves open ample alternative means for communication. 173. Defendants Student Group Policy and their practice of denying the recognition of student groups that duplicate the mission and purpose of existing groups violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it prohibits students and student organizations speech based on the content and viewpoint of such speech. 174. Defendants Student Group Policy and their practice of denying recognition of student groups that duplicate the mission of existing groups violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it grants HCC officials unbridled discretion to discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint. 175. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices provide no narrow, objective, or definite standards to limit the discretion of HCC officials in deciding whether to grant or deny a request to form a new student group. 176. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices does not require HCC 20
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 21 of 94 officials to provide written justification for their decision to grant or deny a request to form a new student group. 177. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices provides no appeal process that students or student organizations may utilize when their request to form a new student group is denied. 178. These grants of unbridled discretion to HCC officials violate the First Amendment because they create a system in which speech is reviewed without any standards, thus giving students no way to prove that a denial or restriction of their speech was based on unconstitutional considerations. 179. Because Defendants have failed to establish narrow, objective, and definite standards governing the review of requests from students and student organizations to engage in speech through the formation of student groups, there is a substantial risk that HCC officials will engage in content and viewpoint discrimination when addressing those applications. 180. The First Amendment s prohibition against content and viewpoint discrimination requires Defendants to provide adequate safeguards to protect against the improper exclusion or restriction of student speech based on its content or viewpoint. 181. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices are an unconstitutional time, place, and manner restriction that violates Plaintiff s and other students right to freedom of speech and expression. 182. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practice are neither reasonable nor valid time, place, and manner restrictions on speech because they are not content-neutral, they are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and they do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication. 183. While Defendants have an interest in establishing rules regarding the formation and operation of student groups, imposing a requirement that student groups not duplicate the mission of other student groups is not narrowly tailored to Defendants interest. 21
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 22 of 94 184. The First Amendment s Freedom of Speech Clause prohibits a public college from restricting student speech based on overbroad regulations. 185. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices are overbroad because they prohibit and restrict protected expression. 186. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices chill, deter, and restrict Ms. DeMartino from freely expressing her political beliefs. 187. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices violate Ms. DeMartino s right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 188. Defendants discriminated against Ms. DeMartino based upon the content and viewpoint of her speech by denying her application to start a TPUSA club but stating that she would be allowed to start a Republican club provided that a Democrat club was also created. 189. Because of Defendants actions, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. 190. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her First Amendment right to freedom of speech and an injunction against Defendants Student Group Policy and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Association Denial of TPUSA Student Group (42 U.S.C. 1983) 191. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 192. Freedom of association is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First 22
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 23 of 94 Amendment. 193. The First Amendment s Free Speech Clause, incorporated and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits the government from restricting the freedom of expressive association. 194. The First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association extends to campuses of state colleges. 195. Defendants Student Group Policy and their practice of denying the recognition of student groups that duplicate the mission and purpose of existing groups violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it prohibits students and student organizations freedom of association based on the expressive mission and purpose of the group. 196. Defendants Student Group Policy and their practice of denying recognition of student groups that duplicate the mission of existing groups violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it denies students the ability to associate freely and obtain the same rights, privileges, and benefits other student groups receive, based solely on the expressive content and viewpoint of the proposed student groups. 197. Defendants have no compelling interest that justifies the burden imposed on Plaintiff and other students rights to freedom of expressive association. 198. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices violate Ms. DeMartino s right to freedom of expressive association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 199. Defendants discriminated against Ms. DeMartino based upon the content and viewpoint of her speech by denying her application to start a TPUSA club but stating that she would be allowed to start a Republican club provided that a Democrat club was also created. 200. Because of Defendants actions, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable 23
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 24 of 94 relief. 201. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her First Amendment right to freedom of association and an injunction against Defendants Student Group Policy and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Law Denial of TPUSA Student Group (42 U.S.C. 1983) 202. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 203. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Ms. DeMartino the equal protection of the laws, which prohibits Defendants from treating Ms. DeMartino differently than similarly situated students. 204. The government may not treat someone disparately as compared to similarly situated persons when such disparate treatment burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class, or has no rational basis. 205. Ms. DeMartino is similarly situated to other students at HCC. 206. Defendants allowed other students to form student groups that duplicated the mission and purpose of existing student clubs, but denied the same to Ms. DeMartino. 207. Defendants treated Ms. DeMartino disparately when compared to similarly situated students by denying Ms. DeMartino s application to form a TPUSA student group. 208. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices violate various fundamental rights of Ms. DeMartino, such as her freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process of law. 24
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 25 of 94 209. When government regulations like Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices challenged herein infringe on fundamental rights, discriminatory intent is presumed. 210. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices have also been applied to discriminate intentionally against Ms. DeMartino s rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and due process of law. 211. Defendants disparate treatment constitutes an exercise of the unbridled discretion given them in HCC s Student Group Policy. 212. Defendants lack a rational or compelling state interest for such disparate treatment of Ms. DeMartino. 213. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices are not narrowly tailored as applied to Ms. DeMartino because Ms. DeMartino s speech does not implicate any of the interests Defendants might have. 214. Defendants have applied HCC s Student Group Policy and associated practices to Ms. DeMartino in a discriminatory and unequal manner, allowing other students to form student groups that duplicate the mission and purpose of other student groups when Defendants say Ms. DeMartino cannot do the same, in violation of Ms. DeMartino s right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. 215. Defendants have granted recognition to both the National Organization for Women student group and the Spectrum Club. The stated purposes of both clubs include recognizing and promoting the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgender students. Defendants have also granted recognition to both the STEM Club and the Information Technology Association. The stated purposes of both clubs include preparing members for careers within the technology fields. 216. Because of Defendants actions, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. 25
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 26 of 94 217. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law and an injunction against Defendants policy and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech Denial of Right to Speak on Campus (42 U.S.C. 1983) 218. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 219. Speech is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment. 220. Political speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. 221. The First Amendment also protects citizens right to engage in spontaneous and anonymous speech. colleges. 222. The First Amendment rights of free speech and press extend to campuses of state 223. The sidewalks and open spaces of HCC s campus are designated public forums if not traditional public forums for speech and expressive activities by students enrolled at HCC. 224. The First Amendment s Free Speech Clause, incorporated and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits content and viewpoint discrimination in the public forums for student speech and expression on the campus of a public college. 225. A public college s ability to restrict speech particularly student speech in a public forum is limited. 226. Under the First Amendment s Free Speech Clause, a prior restraint on citizens expression is presumptively unconstitutional, unless it (1) does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, (2) contains only content and viewpoint neutral reasonable time, 26
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 27 of 94 place, and manner restrictions, (3) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (4) leaves open ample alternative means for communication. 227. Defendants Solicitation Policy and their practice of forbidding students and student organizations from engaging in expressive activities without express written consent violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it prohibits students and student organizations from engaging in speech in public areas of the campus without prior permission. 228. Defendants Solicitation Policy and their practice of requiring students and student organizations to obtain written consent in order to engage in speech at HCC violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it prohibits students and student organizations from engaging in anonymous or spontaneous expression. 229. Defendants Policy and their practice of requiring students and student organizations to obtain express written consent in order to engage in speech at HCC violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it is a prior restraint on speech in areas of campus that are traditional or designated public forums for HCC s students. 230. Unbridled discretion to discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint violates the First Amendment regardless of whether that discretion has ever been unconstitutionally applied in practice. 231. Defendants Solicitation Policy and their practice of requiring students and student organizations to obtain express written consent in order to engage in speech at HCC violates the First Amendment facially and as applied because it grants HCC officials unbridled discretion to discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint. 232. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices provide no narrow, objective, or definite standards to limit the discretion of HCC officials in deciding whether to grant or deny a request from a student or student organization to engage in speech or in deciding what conditions, limitations, or restrictions to impose before granting such a request. 27
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 28 of 94 233. The Solicitation Policy requires HCC officials to examine the content and viewpoint of students speech to determine, for example, whether the speech provide[s] a general positive value to the quality of student life and the College mission, or whether the speech align[s] with institutional initiatives and goals. 234. Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination against Ms. DeMartino when they ordered her to stop engaging in her speech activities and telling her that she would not be allowed to engage in any such speech activities on campus without first obtaining Defendants written consent. 235. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices do not provide a way for HCC officials to approve of spontaneous student or student organization speech on the HCC campus. 236. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices do not require HCC officials to provide written justification for their decision to grant, deny, or place conditions on a request from a student or student organization to engage in speech on the HCC campus. 237. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices provide no appeal process that students or student organizations may utilize when their request to engage in speech is denied or limited. 238. These grants of unbridled discretion to HCC officials violate the First Amendment because they create a system in which speech is reviewed without any objective, content-netural standards, thus giving students no way to prove that a denial, restriction, or relocation of their speech was based on unconstitutional considerations. 239. Because Defendants have failed to establish narrow, objective, definite, and contentneutral standards governing the review of requests from students and student organizations to engage in speech on the HCC campus, there is a substantial risk that HCC officials will engage in content and viewpoint discrimination when addressing those applications. 240. Defendants Policy and associated practices are an unconstitutional time, place, and manner restriction that violates Ms. DeMartino s and other students right to freedom of speech and expression. 28
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 29 of 94 241. Defendants Policy and associated practice are neither reasonable nor valid time, place, and manner restrictions on speech because they are not content-neutral, they are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and they do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication. 242. While Defendants have an interest in maintaining a safe campus, requiring advance approval in order to engage in speech in public areas of HCC campus is not narrowly tailored to Defendants interest. 243. The overbreadth of Defendants Solicitation Policy and related practice chill the speech of students not before the Court who seek to engage in private expression on campus. 244. Defendants violated Ms. DeMartino s First Amendment right to freedom of speech by ordering her to stop engaging in her speech activities and telling her that she would not be allowed to engage in any such speech activities on campus without first obtaining Defendants written consent. 245. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices chill, deter, and restrict Ms. DeMartino from freely expressing her political beliefs. 246. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices violate Ms. DeMartino s right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 247. Because of Defendants actions, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury and irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. 248. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her First Amendment right to freedom of speech and an injunction against Defendants Solicitation Policy and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. 29
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 30 of 94 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process of Law Denial of TPUSA Student Group (42 U.S.C. 1983) 249. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 250. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Ms. DeMartino the right to due process of law and prohibits Defendants from promulgating and employing vague and overbroad standards that allow for viewpoint discrimination in Defendants handling of Ms. DeMartino s speaking and association. 251. The government may not regulate speech or association based on policies that permit arbitrary, discriminatory, and overzealous enforcement. 252. The government may not regulate speech and association based on policies that cause persons of common intelligence to guess at their meaning and differ as to their application. 253. The government also may not regulate speech in ways that do not provide persons of common intelligence fair warning as to what speech or association is permitted and what speech or association is prohibited. 254. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices contain no objective criteria to guide administrators when deciding whether to grant, deny, relocate, or restrict student speech or association on campus. 255. Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices are impermissibly vague and ambiguous and are thus incapable of providing meaningful guidance to Defendants. 256. The lack of criteria, factors, or standards in Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices renders these policies and practices unconstitutionally vague and in violation of Ms. DeMartino s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 30
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 31 of 94 257. The Student Group Policy requires HCC officials to examine the content and viewpoint of a proposed student group s speech by determining whether the purpose of such group is duplicative of the purpose of another student group. 258. Defendants relied upon the vague and ambiguous Student Group Policy to deny Ms. DeMartino the right to form a TPUSA student group based upon the content and viewpoint of the message that TPUSA desired to express. 259. Because of Defendants actions and the vague and ambiguous policies, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. 260. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and an injunction against Defendants policies and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff s Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process of Law Denial of Right to Speak on Campus (42 U.S.C. 1983) 261. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 162 of this Complaint, as if set forth fully herein. 262. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees Ms. DeMartino the right to due process of law and prohibits Defendants from promulgating and employing vague and overbroad standards that allow for viewpoint discrimination in Defendants handling of Ms. DeMartino s speaking and association. 263. The government may not regulate speech or association based on policies that permit arbitrary, discriminatory, and overzealous enforcement. 264. The government may not regulate speech and association based on policies that cause 31
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 32 of 94 persons of common intelligence to guess at their meaning and differ as to their application. 265. The government also may not regulate speech in ways that do not provide persons of common intelligence fair warning as to what speech or association is permitted and what speech or association is prohibited. 266. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices contain no objective criteria to guide administrators when deciding whether to grant, deny, relocate, or restrict student speech or association on campus. 267. Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices are impermissibly vague and ambiguous and are thus incapable of providing meaningful guidance to Defendants. 268. The lack of criteria, factors, or standards in Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices renders these policies and practices unconstitutionally vague and in violation of Ms. DeMartino s right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 269. The Solicitation Policy requires HCC officials to examine the content and viewpoint of students speech to determine, for example, whether the speech provide[s] a general positive value to the quality of student life and the College mission, or whether the speech align[s] with institutional initiatives and goals. 270. Defendants relied upon the vague and ambiguous Solicitation Policy to deny Ms. DeMartino the right to engage in protected speech activities on campus. 271. Because of Defendants actions and the vague and ambiguous policies, Ms. DeMartino has suffered, and continues to suffer irreparable harm. She is entitled to an award of monetary damages and equitable relief. 272. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to a declaration that Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and an injunction against Defendants policies and actions. Additionally, Ms. DeMartino is entitled to damages in an amount to 32
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 33 of 94 be determined by the evidence and this Court and the reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including her reasonable attorneys fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants and provide Plaintiff with the following relief: (A) A declaratory judgment that Defendants Student Group Policy and associated practices, facially and as-applied, violate Plaintiff s rights under the First Amendment; (B) A declaratory judgment that Defendants Solicitation Policy and associated practices, facially and as-applied, violate Plaintiff s rights under the First Amendment; (C) A declaratory judgment that Defendants Solicitation Policy and Student Group Policy and associated practices, facially and as-applied, violates Plaintiff s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (D) A declaratory judgment that Defendants restriction of Plaintiff s speaking and formation of a student group violated Plaintiff s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (E) A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their agents, officials, servants, employees, and any other persons acting on their behalf from enforcing the Solicitation Policy and Student Group Policy and associated practices challenged in this Complaint; (F) Compensatory and nominal damages for the violation of Plaintiff s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (G) Plaintiff s reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and other costs and disbursements in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and (H) All other further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 33
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 34 of 94 Respectfully submitted this 18th day of December, 2015, By: /s/ Steven L. Tiedemann STEVEN L. TIEDEMANN 10451 Mill Run Circle, Ste. 400 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 (410) 356-8837 (443) 293-8877 Fax steve@hardhatlegal.com TYSON LANGHOFER* Arizona Bar No. 32589 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480) 444-0020 (480) 444-0021 Fax tlanghofer@adflegal.org DAVID A. CORTMAN* Georgia Bar No. 188810 TRAVIS C. BARHAM* Arizona Bar No. 024867 Georgia Bar No. 753251 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE, Ste. D-1100 Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043 (770) 339 0774 (770) 339 6744 Fax dcortman@adflegal.org tbarham@adflegal.org DAVID J. HACKER* California Bar No. 249272 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, California 95630 (916) 932-2850 (916) 932-2851 Fax dhacker@adflegal.org *Application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 34
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 35 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 36 of 94 EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 37 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 38 of 94 EXHIBIT 2
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 39 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 40 of 94 EXHIBIT 3
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 41 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 42 of 94 EXHIBIT 4
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 43 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 44 of 94 EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 45 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 46 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 47 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 48 of 94 EXHIBIT 6
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 49 of 94 Student Activities Policy
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 50 of 94 EXHIBIT 7
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 51 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 52 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 53 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 54 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 55 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 56 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 57 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 58 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 59 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 60 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 61 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 62 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 63 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 64 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 65 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 66 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 67 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 68 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 69 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 70 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 71 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 72 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 73 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 74 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 75 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 76 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 77 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 78 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 79 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 80 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 81 of 94 EXHIBIT 8
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 82 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 83 of 94 EXHIBIT 9
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 84 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 85 of 94 EXHIBIT 10
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 86 of 94
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 87 of 94 EXHIBIT 11
Case 1:15-cv-03134-GLR Document 12 Filed 02/25/16 Page 88 of 94