Whether a public transit agency's ban on advertisements that 'primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization' violates the First Amendment's prohibition on religious viewpoint discrimination

QUESTION PRESENTED Young Israel of Tampa is an Orthodox Jewish synagogue that sought to advertise its annual Chanukah celebration on public buses run by the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. HART accepts a wide variety of advertisements on its buses, including for secular holiday events, but rejected Young Israel’s ad based on a policy banning ads that “primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization.” This Court has repeatedly held that similar religious-speech bans constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination. E.g., Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). Even so, there is a 5-3 circuit split over Rosenberger’s application to religious-speech bans in government fora. Five circuits hold that such bans are necessarily viewpoint the need to inquire into a ban’s “reasonableness.” Three circuits hold that governments can ban religion as a “subject matter” if they have “reasonable” standards for doing so. Acknowledging a “circuit split,” the court below declined to hold that HART’s policy was viewpoint discriminatory. Instead, it held that the policy was “unreasonable” for “lack of standards and guidance’— thereby curtailing Young Israel’s injunctive relief and siding with the circuits holding that bans on religious speech are not inherently viewpoint discriminatory. The question presented is: Whether a public transit agency’s ban on advertisements that “primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization” violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on religious viewpoint discrimination.