161518P.pdf   06/13/2017  Paul Gerlich  v.  Steven Leath
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1518
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging Iowa State University 
   violated plaintiffs' civil rights when it refused to allow NORML to use 
   the school's trademarked logos, the named plaintiffs had suffered an 
   injury in fact in their individual capacities and had standing to sue; 
   plaintiffs' attempts to obtain ISU's approval to use the trademarks on 
   NORML's ISU merchandise amounted to constitutionally protected speech; 
   plaintiffs established that the defendants violated their First Amendment 
   rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination; the government speech 
   doctrine does not apply because ISU had created a limited public forum for 
   speech when it made its trademark available for student organizations if 
   they abided by certain conditions; the administration of the trademark 
   licensing regime did not, therefore, constitute government speech; 
   plaintiffs' right to be free from such discrimination was clearly 
   established and the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity; 
   the injunctive relief ordered in the case was not too broad and was not an 
   abuse of the district court's discretion. Judge Kelly, concurring. Judge 
   Loken, dissenting. 
  
161518P.pdf   02/13/2017  Paul Gerlich  v.  Steven Leath
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1518
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines   
   [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil Rights. In an action brought by members of the Iowa 
   State University student chapter of NORML after the school refused the 
   group's trademark licensing requests because the designs it submitted 
   included a cannabis leaf, the district court did not err in concluding the 
   plaintiffs had standing because they suffered an injury in fact in their 
   individual capacities; their allegations that ISU violated their First 
   Amendment rights by rejecting their designs and therefore preventing their 
   ability to spread NORML ISU's message were sufficient to establish injury 
   in fact; the district court did not err in granting plaintiffs summary 
   judgment on their First Amendment claim; qualified immunity is not an 
   issue in this matter because the appeal solely concerns plaintiffs' 
   request for injunctive relief; defendants' actions and statements show 
   that the unique scrutiny they imposed on NORML ISU's trademark 
   applications was motivated by viewpoint discrimination; argument that even 
   if defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination they did not violate 
   plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because the administration of the 
   trademark licensing regime was government speech is rejected as ISU does 
   not use its trademark licensing regime to speak to the public; the 
   injunctive relief ordered affirmed.