Does the risk of death or serious bodily injury to a pedestrian on a median constitute a significant government interest?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For the purposes of protecting the health and safety of pedestrians on medians from encroaching traffic, and drivers from distractions caused by pedestrians on medians, the petitioner enacted an ordinance prohibiting sitting, standing or staying in medians where the speed on the adjacent streets is forty miles per hour or greater. Median users — including solicitors, political activists, and newspapers — claimed that the ordinance violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the petitioner failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish that its ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest while leaving open ample alternative channels of communication. Thus, the questions presented are: 1. Does the risk of death or serious bodily injury to a pedestrian sitting, standing, or staying on a median in a street with a speed limit of forty miles per hour or more constitute a significant government interest in protecting the health and safety of pedestrians even though a pedestrian death has yet to occur? 2. Does McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), dictate that the government must, in all cases, present evidence that it actually tried and failed to utilize less burdensome alternatives, even when, considering the nature of the articulated safety interest and the scope of the ordinance, less burdensome alternatives do not exist? ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES McCraw et al. v. Oklahoma City, et al., CIV-16-0352HE, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Judgment entered December 19, 2018. -McCraw, et al. v. Oklahoma City, et al., 19-6008, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judgment entered August 31, 2020.