Does the City's viewpoint-based restriction on protestors in a public forum satisfy strict scrutiny?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For two days in July, the City of Detroit hosted the 2019 Democratic Party presidential candidate debates, which were held at the Fox Theatre. The City imposed restrictions that prohibited certain demonstrators, including Petitioners Reform America and Mark Harrington, from engaging in First Amendment activity in traditional public fora during the debates. Those restrictions are at issue here. 1. Does the City’s viewpoint-based restriction whereby City police officers divided protestors in a public forum based on the officers’ subjective determination that the protestor’s message was either “left-leaning” or “right-leaning” satisfy strict scrutiny, as the Sixth Circuit held, when the City had no specific, security-based justification for the speech restriction? 2. Does the City’s “restricted area” prohibition on free speech in public fora surrounding the Fox Theatre satisfy constitutional scrutiny when (a) there was no specific, security-based justification for the restriction; (b) alternative measures that burdened substantially less speech would have achieved the government’s interests, and (c) the City enforced a “candidate support corral” rule within the restricted area to allow supporters of the candidates to displays signs for the CNN News coverage of the event?