Ferrari v. Link: Permissibility of Police‐Escort Requirements in Public Buildings Absent Viewpoint Discrimination

Introduction

In Patrick M. Ferrari v. Todd Link, the Seventh Circuit addressed whether a municipal notice requiring a citizen to be escorted by police when conducting “in‐person business” at Village Hall violated the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. Plaintiff‐appellant Patrick Ferrari sued the Village of Glen Carbon, Illinois, its police chief, and two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the escort requirement and his subsequent arrests for failing to comply infringed his free‐speech and due‐process rights. The district court dismissed his operative (fifth amended) complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the requirement was viewpoint neutral and did not exclude Ferrari from the public forum. Ferrari appealed, challenging consolidation of his multiple suits, the handling of his pro se filings, and the court’s refusal to allow a further amended complaint.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 5, 2025, a three‐judge panel (Easterbrook, Brennan, Pryor) unanimously affirmed the district court. The Seventh Circuit held:

Consolidation of the related cases was within the district court’s discretion, as they arose from the same core grievance—the 2019 notice and associated arrests.
Ferrari abandoned claims in his fourth amended complaint by filing and litigating the fifth amended complaint, and he waived any argument on appeal about the fifth complaint’s merits by failing to engage with the district court’s reasoning.
The escort requirement did not violate the First Amendment because Ferrari was not excluded on the basis of his viewpoint; he remained entitled to access so long as he had an officer present. Citizens have no affirmative First Amendment right to enter or remain in public buildings without abiding reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Loc. Educators Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983).
The district court properly denied Ferrari’s motions for reconsideration and a further amendment. Ferrari was bound by counsel’s authorized filings and could not attribute his procedural missteps to unauthorized representation.

The judgment was affirmed in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Loc. Educators Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983): Established that public properties may be treated as different types of forums and that reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they are viewpoint neutral and leave open adequate alternative channels of communication.
Star Ins. Co. v. Risk Mktg. Grp. Inc., 561 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2009): Permits district courts to consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact; reviewed only for abuse of discretion.
McElroy v. Lopac, 403 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2005): A plaintiff who amends a complaint after dismissal cannot challenge the earlier version on appeal.
Alejo v. Heller, 328 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2003): Abandonment of claims where allegations are omitted from the operative complaint.
Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2012): Claims are waived on appeal when arguments are undeveloped or unsupported by law.
S.E.C. v. Yang, 795 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2015): A client is bound by the acts of counsel he employs; disputes over counsel’s authority must be pursued against the lawyer, not the opposing party.

Legal Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit applied the “forum‐analysis” framework from Perry. Village Hall was a nonpublic forum or a limited public forum, and the escort requirement was viewed as a reasonable regulation of access, not a content‐based exclusion. Ferrari was neither singled out because of his views nor barred from entry; he merely had to secure an escort for safety or security reasons. The court emphasized that citizens do not enjoy an unfettered First Amendment right to conduct business in public buildings without conditions.

On procedural grounds, the panel found no reversible error in consolidating the actions, dismissing for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or denying further amendment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Ferrari’s repeated amendments, pro se filings, and failure to timely respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss foreclosed relief. His assertion that counsel lacked authority came too late and conflicted with his prior conduct.

Impact

This decision reinforces that:

Time, place, and manner restrictions in public buildings—such as an escort requirement—are permissible if viewpoint neutral and leaving open alternative means of expression.
District courts have broad discretion to manage multi‐plaintiff, multi‐defendant litigation, including consolidation and successive amendments.
Litigants are bound by the actions of their counsel; late challenges to representation are disfavored where the client knowingly participated in filings.
Pro se practitioners must adhere strictly to procedural deadlines or risk forfeiting substantive claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Nonpublic Forum: Government property not traditionally open to public expressive activities. Restrictions need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: Regulations that control when, where, and how speech occurs, rather than its content. Valid if narrowly tailored and leave open alternative channels.
Failure to State a Claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)): A complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim plausible on its face; conclusory statements are insufficient.
Abandonment of Claims: When a party omits allegations from an operative complaint or fails to argue an issue on appeal, those claims are considered waived.
Motion for Reconsideration (Rules 59 & 60): Post‐judgment motions to correct errors or seek relief from a final order; relief is granted only upon showing of manifest injustice or exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion

Ferrari v. Link clarifies that municipalities may impose reasonable, viewpoint‐neutral conditions—such as requiring a police escort—for entry into or activity within public buildings, without offending the First Amendment. The decision also underscores the importance of procedural compliance: litigants are bound by their counsel’s authorized actions, and late objections or unresponded motions can result in forfeiture of claims. As a precedent, it provides guidance on the permissible scope of public‐forum regulations and reinforces courts’ broad discretion in managing complex litigation.