Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in relying on the government's (or its delegee's) intent to regulate speech in determining that public sidewalks adjacent to government buildings are not traditional public forums

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Rodney Keister sought to evangelize at the intersection of sidewalks open to the public, owned by the City of Tuscaloosa, but adjacent to the University of Alabama. Both university and private buildings line the streets forming the intersection, the sidewalks of which the city maintains as public rightsof-way. Despite the public nature of the intersection, the University, which handles certain maintenance and policing functions for those sidewalks, has forbade Keister from attempting to speak with passersby without securing its permission. Although this Court has consistently held that public sidewalks are “prototypical” examples of traditional public forums, the Eleventh Circuit here ruled that this sidewalk is not a public forum. In doing so, the court expressly deferred to the University’s “intent” to limit and control expressive activity on the sidewalks, notwithstanding the broad right of public access to traverse them. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in relying on the government’s (or its delegee’s) intent to regulate speech in determining that public sidewalks adjacent to government buildings are not traditional public forums, in conflict with decisions by this Court and numerous circuits? 2. Whether the status of a public sidewalk as a protected traditional public forum should be determined by the text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment rather than by an indeterminate multi-factor balancing test?