⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit considers Seattle's permit rules for public events. Organizers of a religious gathering were denied their preferred Pike Street location and obtained a permit elsewhere. They say opponents then violently disrupted their event. They sued, alleging the city let hostile outsiders influence its decisions. Seattle says it applied neutral safety rules. The district judge denied a preliminary injunction because the organizers had not sufficiently alleged a future encounter with the permitting system. This appeal concerns forward-looking relief, not damages for the earlier incident. Daniel Schmid will argue that the group's recurring events and allegations of continuing harm establish standing. Jessica Leiser will defend Seattle's standing argument and permit standards. A facial challenge attacks the rules themselves, rather than their application to one event. A heckler's veto means silencing a speaker because of a hostile audience's reaction, rather than addressing neutral logistical concerns.

Johnson, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al. (No. 26-1700) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 26, 2026.