Ann Waldron Dawson, et al. v. City of Grand Haven, Michigan

In the landmark case of Pleasant Grove v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 129 S.Ct. 1125 (2009), government ownership established, for the first time, a monument as government speech in a City park, a tradition public forum. This case presses Summum’s ownership presumption into the next horizon: a fixed, retractable, mechanical hoist, used as a backdrop to a municipal waterfront theater. The Petitioners seek certiorari for clarification of the Summum government speech test, specifically whether identity of the rationally perceived speaker is the ultimate objective of the inquiry, or whether ownership of the feature pole and its 48-foot metal images control. The Michigan courts so found and upheld the constitutionality of Resolution 15-013 removing the public’s option to raise the 50-year-old metal cross for Worship on the Waterfront, a regular private event held in that municipal theater. Certiorari will also provide an opportunity for the Court to revisit fixtures on government property as limited public forums, and emphasize the government’s right to reject non-conforming speakers and topics under these circumstances. Rosenberger v. Bd. of Regents, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). In addition, this case posits, for the first time since Summum, whether the government speech label also eclipses an Equal Protection claim. 1. Is the Michigan Court of Appeals’ emphasis on the municipality’s ownership/control of the hoist feature pole, used as a backdrop in conjunction with private concerts in the municipal theater, consistent with the government speech analysis established by Summum?