Whether a government may ban expressive conduct without first trying to advance its interests using less speech-restrictive measures

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 494 (2014), this Court held that before banning speech, a government must “show[] that it seriously undertook to address” its interests “with less intrusive tools readily available to it.”. And in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480-481 (1988), the Court held that all “public streets,” without further “particularized inquiry,” are traditional public fora. Applying these principles, several courts of appeals have struck down laws preventing the use of roadway medians for expressive conduct, such as political campaigning and soliciting donations. The Tenth Circuit departed from that line of authority by holding that Sandy City, Utah, could ban individuals from some medians to promote traffic safety, without first attempting to address its safety concerns through less intrusive measures. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a government may ban expressive conduct without first trying to advance its interests using less speech-restrictive measures, as the Tenth Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of this Court and the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. 2. Whether a government may ban all expressive conduct in or near roadways on the ground that doing so is necessary to eliminate the risk of traffic accidents, as the Tenth Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of this Court and the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. i