Logo RGB Utah copy

Moving Justice Forward For 60 Years!

First Unitarian Church v. Salt Lake City Corporation | First Amended Complaint

29 February 2000 Published in Litigation Materials

STEPHEN C. CLARK (4551)
American Civil Liberties Union of Utah Foundation, Inc.
355 North 300 West, Suite 1
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
(801) 521-9862

MARK LOPEZ
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. 2:99CV-0912ST

Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Ronald N. Boyce

FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF SALT LAKE CITY; UTAHNS FOR FAIRNESS; UTAH NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN; and CRAIG S. AXFORD, Plaintiffs,

vs.

SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation; and ROSS C. “ROCKY” ANDERSON, Mayor of Salt Lake City, in his official capacity, Defendants,

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, Intervenor.

Plaintiffs, as and for their First Amended Complaint against defendants Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake City Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, state and allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action arises out of defendants’ sale of one block of Main Street in the heart of downtown Salt Lake City (“Main Street”) to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop (the “CPB”) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “LDS Church”). In December 1998, the City and the CPB announced their plan to turn Main Street into a pedestrian plaza. At that time, and in public meetings and hearings following the announcement, the City and the LDS Church represented that the pedestrian plaza would serve as a park-like gathering place for the general public to enjoy as well as an integral part of the downtown commercial and pedestrian grid. In March 1999, the City Planning Commission approved the plan on the condition that the plaza would be regulated as a public park. In April 1999, however, by administrative sleight-of-hand, defendants made that condition disappear. Instead of a park-like gathering place where plaintiffs and other members of the public could enjoy free expression and other activities subject only to reasonable, constitutionally permissible regulations, defendants purported to authorize creation of a public space where the LDS Church would have exclusive use and control of the property for expressive purposes. Defendants’ conduct had the purpose and effect of: (a) purporting to strip Main Street, a traditional public forum, of its public forum status even though it would continue to serve as public space and part of the downtown commercial and pedestrian grid; (b) imposing unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restrictions facilitating speech and speech-related activities approved by the LDS Church but prohibiting such activities by others; (c) creating an establishment of religion by making the CPB the arbiter and enforcer of the restrictions and by endorsing and supporting the LDS Church at the expense of all others without any secular purpose being served; and (d) depriving plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws by discriminating among speech-related activities and by treating one religion more favorably than all others. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the restrictions defendants agreed to violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights under both the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution as well as their rights under the Utah Constitution, and that those restrictions are therefore invalid.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action is based on, and seeks to redress deprivations under color of law of rights and privileges secured by, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This action thus arises under the laws and the Constitution of the United States. In addition, declaratory relief is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201-02, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

3. Venue for this action properly lies in the Central Division of this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because defendants reside in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, and within the Central Division of this Judicial District, and all or substantially all of the events that give rise to the claims in this action occurred in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City (the “Unitarian Church”) is a religious corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah, with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah. The Unitarian Church is dedicated to advancing causes of spiritual enlightenment and social justice for all individuals regardless of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or other status. The Unitarian Church wishes to pursue its objectives through public dialogue and demonstrations on an equal footing with the LDS Church, but cannot do so because of defendants’ conduct in providing the LDS Church an exclusive, preferred platform on Main Street. Moreover, agents or representatives of the LDS Church have in the past escorted individual members of the Unitarian Church from CPB property, even though these individuals were engaged in entirely legal conduct, for arbitrary and capricious reasons. These members therefore reasonably fear that they will be barred temporarily or even permanently from enjoying access to and use of Main Street pursuant to the public easement unless the Court invalidates defendants’ unconstitutional delegation of that discretionary function. Finally, members of the Unitarian Church have expressed their strong opposition to the governmental endorsement of one religion inherent in the restrictions defendants have imposed on Main Street, to such an extent that although they have regularly traveled on Main Street in the past and would otherwise continue to visit and enjoy the pedestrian mall on Main Street, they will take pains to avoid even using the public easement across Main Street so as not to be confronted with unwelcome governmentally-endorsed religious messages. The Unitarian Church thus brings this action in its own capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of its members.

5. Plaintiff Utahns for Fairness (“UFF”) is an unincorporated association of Utah residents formed for the purpose of opposing the LDS Church’s position on the so-called Knight Initiative, a California ballot measure dealing with same-sex marriage that the LDS Church supports and UFF opposes. UFF has demonstrated in the past and intends to demonstrate in the future to advocate its position on the Knight Initiative and other anti-gay measures supported by the LDS Church. Specifically, Utahns for Fairness held a silent protest against the LDS Church’s position during the October 1999 semi-annual LDS conference. But for defendants’ conduct, UFF would have demonstrated on Main Street as well – their original plan was to join hands around Temple Square to make a powerful symbolic statement about the unfairness of the LDS Church’s position. Unless the Court invalidates defendants’ discriminatory conduct, UFF will in the future be barred from expressing its position on Main Street while the LDS Church will be able to use Main Street as its exclusive platform. UFF wishes to express its position on an equal footing with the LDS Church, but defendants’ conduct prevents it from doing so.

6. Plaintiff Utah National Organization for Women (“Utah NOW”) is a feminist organization dedicated to securing and preserving equal rights for women. In the 1980’s Utah NOW was actively involved in demonstrations on Main Street concerning the LDS Church’s positions on equal rights for women and a woman’s right to choose. Utah NOW intends to continue to advocate its positions on women’s issues, and wishes to do so on an equal footing with the LDS Church.

7. Plaintiff Craig S. Axford is an individual taxpayer and resident of Salt Lake City and a member of the Unitarian Church. Axford testified at public hearings in opposition to the proposed sale, and objects to the governmental endorsement of religion inherent in the sale and the restrictions to such an extent that although he has traveled on Main Street in the past and would otherwise continue to visit and enjoy the pedestrian plaza on Main Street, he will take pains to avoid even using the public easement across Main Street so as not to be confronted with unwelcome governmentally-endorsed religious messages.

8. Defendant Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah. The City is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.

9. Defendant Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson is the Mayor of Salt Lake City. He is sued in his official capacity. The Mayor and his predecessor in office (both singly and collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Mayor”) were acting under color of law at all times relevant to this complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. In December 1998, the LDS Church and the Mayor announced plans to close Main Street to create a pedestrian plaza. Comparing the proposed plaza to the famed Champs Elysees and promising to bring a “bit of Paris” to downtown Salt Lake City, LDS Church and City officials spoke of creating “a wonderful gathering place for people” in an effort to “bring[] more people to downtown Salt Lake City, building the business community, restaurants, retailers and hotels.” Salt Lake Tribune Articles published 12/03/98 and 03/05/99. The clearly stated intent was thus to create a park-like gathering place where all members of the public would be welcome.

11. In public meetings and hearings following the announcement of the transaction, the City and the LDS Church reiterated their intent to treat the property as park-like public space. The LDS Church repeatedly emphasized its plan was not “to restrict public access, but to provide public access.” Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, March 3, 1999. The LDS Church said the plaza would be “presented in such a way that people will walk up that street and not think it is private property.” Id. Based on these and similar representations as to the intended nature and use of the plaza, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission approved the transaction on the condition that “there be no restrictions on the use of this space that are more restrictive than is currently permitted at a public park.” Id.

12. On or about April 9, 1999, the City Attorney’s office forwarded to the City Council a draft Ordinance No. 28 of 1999 (the “Ordinance”). The draft Ordinance purported to authorize the closure and redevelopment of Main Street in connection with the sale of Main Street to the CPB. Section 3 of the draft Ordinance provided, among other things, that the closure and redevelopment are “conditioned upon compliance with all of the conditions identified by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,” a “modified summary” of which was attached as Exhibit “B” to the draft Ordinance. Those conditions included maintaining “a perpetual easement for a 24-hour public pedestrian and bicycle access from North Temple to South Temple,” ensuring that the development “be planned and improved so as to maintain, encourage, and invite public use,” and meeting all applicable requirements “from all City Divisions and Departments.” All of this was consistent with the historic nature and use of Main Street as a traditional public forum and the announced intent to create a park-like public “gathering place.” One of the conditions intentionally omitted from the “summary,” however, was the Planning Commission’s condition that the property be regulated as a public park, thus introducing sub silentio an element of preferential treatment for the LDS Church and its viewpoint that had not previously been made public and that in fact was contrary to the City’s and the LDS Church’s prior public representations. Without public focus on or discussion of that material omission, on or about April 13, 1999, the City enacted the Ordinance as drafted.

13. On or about April 27, 1999, the Mayor executed a “Special Warranty Deed” (the “Deed”) purporting to convey Main Street to the CPB subject to a reservation of easement. The Deed contains several restrictions on the rights of the CPB that are unique to this transaction and reflect the past and intended future use of the property as public space. In Section 1.3 of the Deed, for example, the City “reserves an easement over and across the surface of [Main Street] for pedestrian access and passage,” and requires that the property “be available for such pedestrian access and passage at all times, both day and night.” Section 1.3 also prohibits the CPB from impeding public access or physically setting Main Street off from the contiguous public streets and sidewalks by means of perimeter fences or gates along the streets to the East and West. Section 1.4 of the Deed further limits the CPB’s rights by prohibiting any occupied buildings “[i]n order to preserve the view corridor.” Thus Main Street is to continue to facilitate the daily commerce and life of the downtown area.

14. Notwithstanding their representations that Main Street would remain open to the public subject only to reasonable, constitutionally permissible regulation as a public park, and therefore was to maintain its historic status as a traditional public forum, defendants agreed in the Warranty Deed to grant the CPB exclusive privileges and preferences. For example, in Section 2.2 of the Deed defendants purport to authorize the CPB to prohibit, among other things, “loitering, assembling, . . . demonstrating, picketing, distributing literature, . . . erecting signs or displays, using loudspeakers or other devices to project music, sound or spoken messages, engaging in any . . . offensive, indecent, . . . or disorderly speech, dress or conduct . . . ” on Main Street. Those prohibitions, however, apply only to members of the public such as plaintiffs; defendants purport to allow the CPB not only to enjoy unfettered access to and use and enjoyment of Main Street, but to make exclusive use of Main Street for expressive purposes, “including, without limitation, the distribution of literature, the erection of signs and displays by [the CPB], and the projection of music and spoken messages by [the CPB].” Deed, Section 2.2. Defendants also allow the CPB to “erect and maintain one or more kiosks or information booths which may be occupied by attendants.” Deed, Section 1.4.

15. Although the City Administration had represented that that the reservation of easement conformed to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission when the commission considered and conditionally approved the proposed sale of Main Street to the CPB, in fact the reservation of easement did not conform to those conditions. The purpose and effect of this misrepresentation were to obscure the fact of defendants’ preferential treatment of the LDS Church and their discrimination against plaintiffs.

16. In Section 2.3 of the Deed, defendants purport to authorize the CPB, in its absolute discretion, to permanently exclude members of the public who, among other things, have “threatened” harm or damage to leaders or members or property of the CPB or have violated the restrictions identified in paragraph 12, above, on more than one previous occasion. In Section 3 of the Deed, defendants purport to grant the CPB the right “to prevent any uses of the easements which are contrary to the provisions of this instrument,” including “the right to obtain injunctive relief enforcing the provisions of this instrument.”

17. On information and belief, the CPB and/or the LDS Church plan to utilize Main Street for their own expressive purposes. Thus, for example, missionaries or other representatives of the LDS Church will be free to circulate on the property, distribute pamphlets detailing the LDS Church’s doctrinal, moral or political positions, and otherwise promulgate messages approved by the LDS Church, while policing the property to ensure that no one is similarly circulating, distributing pamphlets or otherwise promulgating non-LDS-approved messages. Defendants knew of and agreed to these plans.

18. On information and belief, at no time did defendants solicit bids for the property, solicit alternative development proposals for the property, or otherwise ascertain whether another entity might have been willing to develop the property as a park-like public space without unconstitutionally restricting plaintiffs’ and the public’s First Amendment rights or creating an establishment of religion on the property. To the contrary, without fully advising the public or even the City Council of the precise nature and effect of the transaction with the CPB, defendants intentionally joined with the CPB in a concerted action to create what would appear to be a public park but what would in fact be a restricted religious enclave, where plaintiffs and others will be “welcome” so long as they do not engage in speech or conduct the LDS Church might deem “offensive.”

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Freedoms of Expression and Association (Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Violation of Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)

19. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

20. Defendants are a government body and a government official and are therefore subject to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

21. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, defendants may not abridge, directly or indirectly, the freedoms of expression or association of members of the public such as plaintiffs who wish to enjoy access to and engage in expressive conduct upon Main Street unfettered by vague restrictions on those freedoms and on an equal footing with the LDS Church, without discrimination as to content or viewpoint.

22. The restrictions in the Deed are facially invalid. They are directed narrowly and specifically at expression, or conduct commonly associated with expression, and have the direct and immediate effect of giving the LDS Church a preferred platform for expressing its views at the expense of plaintiffs and others who do not enjoy such preferred status. Moreover, they permit communication in a certain manner for some but not for others, and allow the LDS Church to decide who may speak and who may not, without standards to govern the exercise of discretion. This amounts to government-sanctioned content and viewpoint discrimination. Defendants have therefore violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and other members of the public by, among other things, purporting to impose or allow the imposition of vague, arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on the public’s right of access to and use of Main Street, and by favoring the LDS Church and its beliefs and opinions on controversial issues of public interest.

23. Plaintiffs have a strong liberty interest in exercising their rights to engage in lawful conduct, including lawful speech and assembly, on Main Street, on an equal footing with the CPB, and without discrimination based on the content or viewpoint of their expression.

24. Defendants’ conduct also violates the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25. As a result of defendants’ violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

26. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs contend that Main Street has been and remains, notwithstanding the sale, open to First Amendment activity subject only to reasonable, constitutionally permissible regulations because it previously was a traditional public forum, it will continue to serve as a park-like public gathering place and a thoroughfare open to the general public, and speech and speech-related activities will continue to occur on the property, albeit only at the LDS Church’s unfettered discretion. Plaintiffs contend that the Main Street plaza continues to carry with it certain public rights that cannot be alienated merely by a sale of Main Street to the CPB and a recitation that it is not longer a public forum. Plaintiffs further contend that defendants unconstitutionally seek to deny equal access to that forum and to discriminate against the rights of plaintiffs and members of the public who wish to engage in lawful expression and association on Main Street. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants dispute these contentions and contend that their conduct is constitutional. In addition, the City has stated that if forced to choose the City likely would elect to deed the easement to the CPB if plaintiffs succeed in establishing their claims. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of the parties’ rights and responsibilities, an injunction against the Mayor’s conveyance of the easement, and an injunction against the LDS Church’s use of the property for its own expressive purposes unless and until plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights.

27. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to an award against defendants of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Establishment of Religion (Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I Section 4 of the Utah Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)

28. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 18 and 20 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

29. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 4 of the Utah Constitution, defendants may not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, allow a church to dominate the State or interfere with its functions, or appropriate public property to support any ecclesiastical establishment.

30. By their conduct described in this Complaint, defendants have violated and are continuing to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by, among other things, authorizing the CPB to prohibit speech that it finds offensive or unacceptable while permitting the CPB unfettered use of Main Street to promulgate its own messages and unbridled discretion over which members of the public will be allowed to enjoy access to and enjoyment of Main Street pursuant to a public easement, which is a traditional state function; endorsing the LDS Church and entangling the LDS Church in governmental functions without any secular purpose; and purporting to dedicate a park-like public gathering place to the exclusive control of a religious organization. Defendants have also created an unconstitutional blurring of the distinction between church property and public property, giving the indelible impression that the LDS church occupies a privileged position in the community and that the City endorses the LDS Church and its messages, without any secular purpose.

31. Defendants’ conduct also violates the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

32. Defendants’ actions also constitute a union of church and state, an interference with state functions and/or an appropriation of public property to support an ecclesiastical establishment, in violation of Article I Section 4 of the Utah Constitution.

33. As a result of defendants’ violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Utah Constitution, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

34. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of the parties’ rights and responsibilities, an injunction against the Mayor’s conveyance of the easement, and an injunction against the LDS Church’s use of the property for its own expressive purposes unless and until plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights.

35. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to an award against defendants of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Equal Protection of the Law (Violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I Section 24 of the Utah Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)

36. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 18 and 20 of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

37. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, defendants may not deny plaintiffs equal protection of the laws by discriminating among speech-related activities in a public forum without a substantial state interest, by discriminating against plaintiffs based on the content of their religious, political or other views, or by imposing invidious distinctions not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest.

38. By their conduct described in this Complaint, defendants have violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and other members of the public by purporting to impose or allowing the imposition of vague, arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions on the public’s right of access to and use of Main Street while at the same time allowing the CPB and those of whom it approves unrestricted access. Such restrictions do not serve and are not related to any compelling or substantial governmental interest, but to the contrary constitute invidious discrimination against plaintiffs, with the purpose and effect of disfavoring plaintiffs’ speech activities and organizational standing in the community in favor of the LDS Church.

39. Plaintiffs have a strong liberty interest in exercising their equal rights to engage in lawful conduct, including lawful speech and assembly, on Main Street, on an equal footing with all others who seek to enjoy access to and use and enjoyment of Main Street pursuant to the easement, and in not being subjected to invidious discrimination through the administrative and legal machinations of City government.

40. Defendants’ actions taken in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution also violate the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

41. Defendants’ actions also violate plaintiffs’ right to uniform application of the laws under Article I Section 24 of the Utah Constitution.

42. As a result of defendants’ violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Utah Constitution, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury.

43. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs contend that defendants unconstitutionally seek to deny equal access to Main Street and are discriminating against plaintiffs and members of the public who wish to engage in lawful expression and association on Main Street but will be precluded from doing so for arbitrary and invidious reasons, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants dispute these contentions and contend that their conduct is constitutional. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of the parties’ rights and responsibilities, an injunction against the Mayor’s conveyance of the easement, and an injunction against the LDS Church’s use of the property for its own expressive purposes unless and until plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights.

44. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiffs are entitled to an award against defendants of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and:

AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988:

(1) grant plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from violating plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, prohibiting the Mayor from conveying the easement in an effort to extinguish all public rights in Main Street, and prohibiting the CPB from enjoying exclusive control and use of the property for its own expressive purposes until and unless plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights;

(2) issue a declaratory judgment declaring the rights and responsibilities of the parties to this action, and particularly declaring that defendants have created and maintained a traditional public forum or other forum within the meaning of the federal Constitution, that defendants unlawfully have denied equal access to that forum and discriminated against plaintiffs and other members of the public, or have otherwise violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by discriminating against them based on the contents or viewpoints of their speech, and that therefore the restrictions in the Deed are null and void and that defendants are required to promulgate and administer reasonable, constitutionally permissible regulations on access to and enjoyment of the property; and

(3) award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF, pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Article I Section 4 of the Utah Constitution:

(1) grant plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from violating plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, prohibiting the Mayor from conveying the easement in an effort to extinguish all public rights in Main Street, and prohibiting the CPB from exercising traditional state functions on the property and enjoying exclusive control and use of the property for its own expressive purposes until and unless plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights;

(2) issue a declaratory judgment declaring the rights and responsibilities of the parties to this action and declaring the restrictions in the Deed null and void; and

(3) award plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Article I Section 24 of the Utah Constitution:

(1) grant plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from violating plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, prohibiting the Mayor from conveying the easement in an effort to extinguish all public rights in Main Street, and prohibiting the CPB from enjoying exclusive control and use of the property for its own expressive purposes until and unless plaintiffs are granted equal access and equal rights;

(2) issue a declaratory judgment dec