‘PETA v. Shore Transit’ Case Summary

Case Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Shore Transit, et al.
Index Number: JKB-21-02083
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

In May 2020, slaughterhouses were emerging as a leading vector for the COVID-19 pandemic, and PETA submitted two advertisement proposals to Shore Transit calling for the closure of such facilities along Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Both ads read, “No One Needs to Kill to Eat. Close the Slaughterhouses: Save the Workers, Their Families, and the Animals.”

PETA heard back just three days later that, in Shore Transit’s view, these ads were “too offensive” for the Eastern Shore market, “political in nature,” and in violation of the agency’s advertising policy, which granted it the authority to reject ads it “determine[d] to be controversial, offensive, objectionable or in poor taste.”

In response, PETA, represented by co-counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, sued the agency in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Shore Transit’s policy violated the First and 14th amendments because a reasoned application of the policy wasn’t possible, it was viewpoint discriminatory against speech that the agency deemed offensive, and it was inherently vague. PETA also alleged that Shore Transit had applied the policy in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner to avoid criticism of a powerful local business interest. The lawsuit asked for a court order invalidating Shore Transit’s unconstitutional policy and requiring it to accept and run PETA’s ads.

PETA Secures Denial of a Motion to Dismiss

On January 17, 2021, the district court issued an order agreeing with PETA and denying Shore Transit’s motion to dismiss the case. As the court explained, PETA had valid claims that the reasoned application of the challenged policy wasn’t possible; that the restriction on advertisements that are controversial, offensive, or in poor taste was viewpoint discriminatory on its face; that Shore Transit’s rejection of PETA’s ads was viewpoint discriminatory; and that the challenged provisions were unconstitutionally vague. Specifically, the court noted that “[b]y its terms, application of the policy is contingent on Defendants’ own assessment of what may be offensive.”

“While the Court is certainly sympathetic that Defendants may have an interest in limiting graphic or gory imagery on its buses, the manner in which Defendants allegedly have done so appears to be neither viewpoint neutral nor reasonable.”

—U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

PETA scored a victory when Shore Transit, seeing the writing on the wall, withdrew its advertising policy and ended the lawsuit. The agency’s new policy bans all advertising except its own internal messages and government public service advertisements.