An ASU anti-abortion student group that filed a lawsuit against ASU in 2006 is now awaiting a trial court ruling to appeal the case in the U.S. 9th Circuit.

In 2005, ASU Students for Life attempted to reserve several speech zones on the Tempe campus to display an exhibit, but the University restricted them to just one zone.

The student group also hosted an event in 2006 with Justice for All, an off-campus nonprofit organization, and was required to pay insurance for an on-campus event that consisted of sitting at a table and passing out fliers. Students in the group say the University restricted them even though ASU didn’t have a written statement defining its policy.

In its old policy, ASU required proof of insurance for all on-campus events involving outside organizations.

That same year, the student group sued ASU for violating students’ First Amendment rights by enforcing “unnecessary and discriminatory regulations” by classifying campuses as limited free-speech zones, according to court documents.

ASU has since modified and implemented a written policy of providing proof of insurance or signing an indemnification agreement to accommodate the group’s request. The group still appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Oct. 20 after a district court judge ruled in favor of the University in April 2008.

“We are looking for a solution that will protect the rights of Students for Life and all of the other students at ASU’s campus,” said Heather Gebelin Hacker, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing the student group.

Hacker said students in the group were not able to comment.

The district court classified the outdoor zone by the Memorial Union, where the student group hosted its event, as a limited public forum where the government can regulate speech as long as the regulation is reasonable and neutral.

The group disagreed with the court’s decision because a college campus is a public forum for students, as the Supreme Court has ruled for many years, Hacker said.

“We believe that the court needs to address that issue of whether or not these forums are public forums because it has implications on how heavy-handed ASU can be in the future in regulating student speech,” Hacker said.

During the Oct. 20 court hearing, representatives from the University assured the student group that ASU will not go back to its old policy, spokeswoman Sharon Keeler said.

“Our old policy conformed to the law, and when the law changed, so did ours,” Keeler said. “ASU already stated and committed in open court that we will not return to using the prior policy.”

Because ASU has already changed the policy at issue, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Chief Judge Alex Kozinski suggested to lawyers on both sides that it might be better to attempt settling the case outside the court.

Hacker said she disagreed, and the court should weigh in on the matter.

“If there is nothing that is stopping [ASU] from going back to that the old policy, then they can essentially go back to exactly what they were doing before and then we’re going to be in court over and over again,” she said.

The student group is now seeking nominal damage from the University, but Hacker said the principle of the case is more important than the money.

“If you’re awarded nominal damages, then that means there’s recognition that the government violated your constitutional right,” she said.

Keeler said the University did not violate the students’ free speech or any other constitutional right, and the group is asking for nominal damages to preserve their right to ask the court for attorney’s fees.

“The attorney for ASU Students for Life admitted that the students have no objection to the current student policy, so the University believes that the students’ claim for nominal damages is unjustified,” she said.

Joseph Russomanno, a mass communication law professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said this case represents the importance of protecting freedom of speech on college campuses.

“University campuses are seen as the quintessential representation of the marketplace of ideas where a wide variety of ideas can be expressed, discussed and debated,” he said.

As long as the University does not completely silence any group, it is well within ASU’s right to demand that certain standards be met, Russomanno said.

Reach the reporter at griselda.nevarez@asu.edu.