Court revives lawsuit claiming DC’s double standard: BLM graffiti permitted, but not pro-life.

Appeals ‌Court Revives Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination ​in Anti-Graffiti Enforcement

A U.S.‌ appeals⁣ court on Tuesday breathed new life into a lawsuit claiming that the District of Columbia selectively enforced ⁣an anti-graffiti law, discriminating against pro-life​ protesters while allowing racial ‍justice demonstrators to go unpunished in 2020.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a unanimous 3-0 decision, found that two anti-abortion groups had presented a plausible case that ‌the D.C. government had “discriminated​ on the basis of viewpoint in the selective enforcement of its ​defacement ordinance.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America after two protesters were arrested for writing “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk during an August 2020 demonstration.

The foundation argued that D.C. authorities had neglected‌ to enforce the​ anti-graffiti law during widespread protests following the murder of George Floyd, while vigorously enforcing it against them during the same period.

“Washington⁤ officials can’t silence messages they disagree with,” stated Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the organizations representing the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

The ​district contended that it had ‍prioritized police resources on other matters ​during the large demonstrations⁣ that followed Floyd’s⁤ death. A spokesperson for ⁣the ⁢D.C. attorney general did not immediately respond to a request for ⁣comment.

In 2021, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the groups had failed⁢ to provide evidence of discriminatory intent by the D.C. government.

The appeals court, however, determined that the organizations only needed to demonstrate that the two groups of protesters were ⁤in similar situations and ⁢that‌ the enforcement of the law ‌violated the anti-abortion groups’ right to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution.

“It is fundamental to our free speech rights that the government ‌cannot pick and choose between speakers, not when regulating and not when enforcing the laws,” emphasized the court.

(Reporting by‍ Andrew Goudsward; Editing by David Bario and Jonathan ⁢Oatis)