For the last fourteen years, Young Israel has hosted a community celebration called “Chanukah on Ice.” This family-friendly event features ice-skating, food, music, a raffle, and the lighting of an ice-sculpted menorah—one of the central symbols of Chanukah.

In October of 2020, Rabbi Rivkin, vice president of Young Israel, sought to advertise Chanukah on Ice on a nearby bus route operated by HART. The proposed advertisement included an image of a menorah and invited community members to enjoy “ice skating to Jewish music around the flaming menorah.”

HART refused to run the ad because it “does not allow religious affiliation advertising” and also bans “adult, alcohol, tobacco, and political ads.” Rabbi Rivkin appealed to HART’s CEO, who told him HART would run the ad if Young Israel removed the image of the menorah – the central religious image – from the ad and deleted all reference to the lighting of the menorah. When Young Israel was unwilling to strip its religious symbol from the ad, HART refused to run it.

On February 5, 2021, Young Israel filed a lawsuit against HART in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On January 26, 2022, the federal district court granted summary judgment to Young Israel. The court found that HART’s ban on religious advertisements was both discriminatory and standardless. The court also ordered that HART’s religious-ad ban be permanently prevented from being enforced. HART the appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit.

In September 2022, the Center filed an amicus brief in support of Young Israel in which the Center asked the Eleventh Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision, arguing that HART’s policy forbidding advertisements that primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization is viewpoint discrimination and also discriminates against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

On January 10, 2024, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order on free speech grounds, holding that the district court “properly concluded that HART’s advertising policy is unreasonable because it fails to define key terms, lacks any official guidance, and vests too much discretion in those charged with its application.” More importantly, however, the panel did not address the question of viewpoint discrimination, instead concluding that this analysis was unnecessary to reaching its holding that HART’s policy was too vague. Both conclusions impacted the injunctive relief that the panel was able to affirm. Because the panel affirmed the district court on the narrower ground that the current policy is too vague, it accordingly reversed the district court’s permanent injunction and remanded the case for the injunction to be narrowed “to apply only to HART’s current policy.” The revised injunction effectively gives HART another chance to draft a policy restricting religious advertisements on its buses.

Young Israel filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Eleventh Circuit. The Center joined an amicus brief in support of Young Israel’s petition. The brief argues that the panel’s decision ignores long-settled Supreme Court precedent—as the Supreme Court has made clear that restricting activity that primarily promotes a religion or a religious organization is viewpoint discrimination—and also conflicts with the Eleventh Circuit’s own established standard of review.