September 12, 2018
OPEN LETTER DEMANDING IMMEDIATE REVERSAL OF NIKE BAN
Ben Zahn
City of Kenner
Office of the Mayor
1801 Williams Boulevard, Suite B-200
Kenner, Louisiana 70062
Via U.S. postal mail and e-mail: kennermayor@kenner.la.us
Dear Mayor Zahn:

PO Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156
504-522-0617
laaclu.org
Alanah Odoms Hebert
Executive Director

According to widespread media reports, you recently issued a memorandum,
dated Sept. 5, that forbids Kenner booster clubs from purchasing Nike products. As the
memo stated, “Under no circumstances will any Nike product or any product with the
Nike logo be purchased for use or delivery at any City of Kenner Recreation Facility.”
You subsequently issued a public statement, which made clear that you took the
action in response to a recent Nike advertisement. You sought to ban Nike products to
avoid promoting what you termed the brand’s “political agenda.”
This letter is to advise you that your actions are unconstitutional, and we strongly
urge you to rescind your policy. The policy violates the First Amendment’s prohibition
against content and viewpoint discrimination because it prevents booster clubs and their
members from purchasing, for use at Kenner facilities, types of apparel that you have
targeted as political expression. Kenner booster clubs and their members have a protected
right to exercise their freedom of expression by buying, and wearing, their chosen
sportswear at Kenner facilities.
“The First Amendment protects not only verbal and written expression, but also
symbols and conduct that constitute ‘symbolic speech.’” Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch.
Dist., 268 F.3d 275, 282 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch.
Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 505–06 (1969)). As suggested by the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Tinker, which upheld a student’s right to wear a black armband to protest the
Vietnam War, an individual’s choice of attire may be endowed with sufficient expressive
qualities to warrant First Amendment protection.
As the Fifth Circuit stated in Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board:
A person's choice of clothing is infused with intentional expression
on many levels. In some instances, clothing functions as pure
speech. A student may choose to wear shirts or jackets with written
messages supporting political candidates or important social issues.
Words printed on clothing qualify as pure speech and are protected
under the First Amendment. … Clothing may also symbolize
ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, and political and social views.
Individuals regularly use their clothing to express ideas and
opinions. …

 240 F.3d 437, 440–41 (5th Cir. 2001). Like the statute struck down in Texas v.
Johnson, your policy restricts not just “the expression of an idea through activity,” it
restricts “expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, expression
situated at the core of our First Amendment values.” 491 U.S. 397, 410-11 (1989).
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the
idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Id. at 414. Laws that “cannot be justified without
reference to the content” of the regulated expressive conduct, or that have been adopted
“because of disagreement with the message” conveyed, are content based, and often
viewpoint based as well. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015). Such
laws trigger strict scrutiny, requiring the government to demonstrate that the restriction is
both necessary to advance a compelling government interest, and the least restrictive
means for doing so. Id. at 2231.
PO Box 56157
New Orleans, LA 70156
504-522-0617
laaclu.org
Alanah Odoms Hebert
Executive Director

Because your policy imposes a blanket restriction on booster clubs’ purchase of
Nike products, regardless whether the clubs use government funds or their own money, it
is not narrowly tailored to any government interest in the “protect[ion] of taxpayer
dollars.” See FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 399–401 (1989). Your
personal objection to the political messages expressed by Nike is simply not a legitimate
government interest, let alone a compelling one.
I trust that you will comply with the requirements of our Constitutions and ensure
adequate protections for all.

Sincerely,

Alanah Odoms Hebert
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana
Brian Hauss
Staff Attorney
ACLU Speech, Privacy & Technology Project