Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
ARKANSAS TIMES LP
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-00914 BSM

MARK WALDRIP, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

I routinely instruct jurors to follow my instructions on the law, even if they thought
the law was different or think it should be different. This case presents an occasion in which
I must follow the same principle, which is that I have a duty to follow the law even though,
before researching the issue, I thought the law required a different outcome than the one
ultimately reached.
Plaintiff Arkansas Times LP’s motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 2] is
denied, and defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 15] is granted. Defendants’ motion for
leave to file a reply brief [Doc. No. 22] is denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
The Arkansas Times challenges the constitutionality of Act 710, a state statute
requiring that companies doing business with state entities certify that they are not boycotting
Israel. The relevant facts are as follows:
Act 710 prohibits state entities from entering into contracts with companies for goods
or services unless those companies certify in writing that they are not currently engaged in,
nor will they engage in for the duration of their contract, a “boycott of Israel.” Ark. Code

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 2 of 17

Ann. § 25-1-503(a). It defines a “boycott of Israel” to mean:
[E]ngaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or
other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with
Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in
Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.
Id. § 25-1-502(1)(A)(i). If a company fails to provide this written certification, it may still
contract with a state entity—but it must first offer to provide its goods or services for at least
a twenty percent discount. Id. § 25-1-503(b)(1). The law does not apply to contracts with
a potential value of less than $1,000. Id. § 25-1-503(b)(2).
This law is not the only one of its kind. Dozens of states have passed similar statutes.
See Br. Opp. Pl. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 2 n.1, Doc. No. 14. There is a somewhat similar federal
law authorizing the “President [to] issue regulations prohibiting any United States person
. . . from . . . support[ing] any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a
[friendly] country.” 50 U.S.C. § 4607(a)(1) (1979); see also Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, Pub.
L. No. 115-232, §§ 1771–74.
The Arkansas Times is a weekly newspaper in Arkansas. Its publisher and chief
executive officer is Alan Leveritt. For many years, the Times has contracted with Pulaski
Technical College, now the University of Arkansas–Pulaski Technical College (“Pulaski
Tech”), to publish advertisements for the college. In 2016, the Times entered into twentytwo advertising contracts with Pulaski Tech for amounts over $1,000; in 2017, it entered into
thirty-six such contracts. In 2018, the Times entered into twenty-five such contracts before
October.
2

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 3 of 17

In October 2018, the Arkansas Times and Pulaski Tech were preparing to enter into
a new advertising contract.

Pulaski Tech, consistent with Act 710’s certification

requirements, informed Leveritt that he would have to certify that the Times is not currently
engaging in, nor would for the duration of the contract engage in, a boycott of Israel.
Leveritt declined to do so, citing the Times’s First Amendment rights. Specifically, the
Times takes the position that it should not have to choose between doing business with the
state and its right to freedom of expression. Leveritt also asserts that while he was not
afforded an opportunity to decline certification and to offer a twenty percent reduction in
price, such a discount is unacceptable.
The Times has previously complied with the law’s certification provision on dozens
of occasions, as it entered into many advertising contracts with Pulaski Tech after Act 710
went into effect. Further, while the paper’s editorial board has been critical of Act 710, it
appears that the Times has never engaged in, nor ever written in support of, a boycott of
Israel. See Lindsey Millar, Arkansas Times challenges law that requires state contractors
to pledge not to boycott Israel in federal court, Arkansas Times: Arkansas Blog (Dec. 11,
2018) (“The Times has never participated in a boycott of Israel or editorialized in support of
one.”). Nothing indicates the Times will engage in such a boycott.
Because of the Times’s refusal to certify, the parties did not execute a contract in
October 2018, and there are no existing contracts between them. It is also very unlikely that
there will be any future advertising contracts between the Times and Pulaski Tech because

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 4 of 17

of this certification requirement.
The Arkansas Times brings this lawsuit asserting that Act 710 violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. It seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from
enforcing the law’s certification provision while this suit is pending. Defendants oppose the
motion and have moved to dismiss.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). Whether to grant such relief is within the sound
discretion of the district court. See Lankford v. Sherman, 451 F.3d 496, 503 (8th Cir. 2006).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must prove that: (1) it will suffer irreparable harm
if the injunction is denied; (2) the harm to the movant, if the injunction is denied, outweighs
the harm to the non-movant if the injunction is granted; (3) there is a likelihood of success
on the merits; and (4) an injunction is in the public’s interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L
Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981); Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d
414, 418 (8th Cir. 1987).
Generally, a “fair chance” of prevailing on the merits is required to grant a preliminary
injunction. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, N. Dakota, S. Dakota v. Rounds, 530 F.3d
724, 730–31 (8th Cir. 2008). “Where a preliminary injunction is sought to enjoin the
implementation of a duly enacted state statute, however, the moving party must make a more
rigorous showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits.” Planned Parenthood of Arkansas

4

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 5 of 17

& E. Oklahoma v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953, 957–58 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). This
heightened standard “reflects the idea that governmental policies implemented through
legislation or regulations developed through presumptively reasoned democratic processes
are entitled to a higher degree of deference and should not be enjoined lightly.” Rounds, 530
F.3d at 732 (quoting Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131 (2d Cir. 1995)).
III. DISCUSSION
The Arkansas Times presents two arguments challenging the constitutionality of Act
710’s certification requirement. First, it asserts that the law impermissibly compels speech
regarding contractors’ political beliefs, association, and expression. Second, it asserts that
the law impermissibly restricts state contractors from engaging in protected First Amendment
activities, including boycott participation and boycott-related speech, without a legitimate
justification. Defendants dispute both of these arguments and assert that the Times lacks
standing to bring its boycott-restriction claim.
While the Times has standing to bring both of its claims, a preliminary injunction is
denied because the Arkansas Times has failed to show that a boycott of Israel, as defined by
Act 710, is protected by the First Amendment.
A.

Standing

The Arkansas Times has standing to bring its boycott-restriction claim because it
suffered an injury in fact when it lost a government contract after refusing to comply with
Act 710’s certification provision. It does not have to allege that it intends to boycott Israel
5

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 6 of 17

or that it would have boycotted Israel but for Act 710.
Federal courts may hear only “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,
cl.1. “[T]here is no case or controversy unless the party initiating the [lawsuit] has standing
to sue.” Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 831
F.3d 961, 966 (8th Cir. 2016). To establish that it has standing to bring this lawsuit, the
Arkansas Times must show that it suffered an “injury in fact.” See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). “Injury-in-fact means an actual or imminent invasion
of a concrete and particularized legally protected interest.” Kinder v. Geithner, 695 F.3d 772,
776 (8th Cir. 2012).
There are two common ways of demonstrating an injury in fact in First Amendment
cases. See Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr, 830 F.3d 789, 794 (8th Cir. 2016).
First, a plaintiff may allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct . . . proscribed by
a statute” such that the plaintiff risks prosecution or some other penalty, including the loss
of a government contract. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Babbitt v. Farm
Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). Second, it may allege self-censorship. Id.; see also 281
Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621, 627 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that to show selfcensorship, a plaintiff “needs . . . to establish that he would like to engage in arguably
protected speech, but that he is chilled from doing so by the existence of the statute.”).
Critically, these two methods are used in cases in which plaintiffs are challenging the
constitutionality of a law before facing prosecution or otherwise suffering from the adverse
6

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 7 of 17

consequences of noncompliance. See 281 Care Comm., 638 F.3d at 627; Zanders v.
Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 593–94 (8th Cir. 2009). See also Ward v. Utah, 321 F.3d 1263,
1267 (10th Cir. 2003).
The Times, however, has already sustained an injury from Act 710, and its standing
to bring the boycott-restriction claim does not derive from a risk of future injury. It lost its
contract with Pulaski Tech, and therefore suffered a concrete and quantifiable economic loss,
because it refused to comply with Act 710’s certification provision. See Jordahl v. Brnovich,
336 F. Supp. 3d 1016, 1033 (D. Ariz. 2018) (noting that the resulting financial harm from
plaintiff’s failure to certify under a similar Arizona statute is an independent basis for
standing) (citing Ariz. Right to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th
Cir. 2003)).
This is sufficient to confer standing upon the Times to bring its boycott-restriction
claim. See also Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 591–92 (8th Cir. 2009)
(“Article III generally requires injury to the plaintiff’s personal legal interests, but that does
not mean that a plaintiff with Article III standing may only assert his own rights or redress
his own injuries.”) (internal citation omitted); Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, &
Edward H. Cooper, 13B Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3531.16, at 362–63 (3d ed. 2008).
B.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Times is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims because
it has not demonstrated that a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is protected by the
7

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 8 of 17

First Amendment. This finding diverges from decisions recently reached by two other
federal district courts. Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; Koontz v. Watson, 283 F. Supp. 3d
1007, 1021–22 (D. Kan. 2018).
1. Applicable First Amendment Standards and “Boycotts of Israel”
The First Amendment, made applicable to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, forbids the government “from dictating what we see or
read or speak or hear.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245 (2002). It
“protects political association as well as political expression.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S.
1, 15 (1976). “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should
decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and
adherence.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994).
Certification requirements for obtaining government benefits, including employment
or contracts, that merely elicit information about an applicant generally do not run afoul of
the First Amendment. See United States v. Sindel, 53 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 1995). They
become constitutionally problematic, however, when they require that an applicant certify
that it “will not engage . . . in protected speech activities” or “associational activities within
constitutional protection.” Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 680 (1972). They may also
violate the Constitution if they require an applicant to endorse or espouse a particular
message. See id.; see also Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S.
205, 217–18 (2013) (holding that the government could not require organizations to adopt
8

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 9 of 17

a policy opposing prostitution in order to receive government funds).
Act 710 requires contractors to certify that they will not refuse to deal with Israel or
with companies that do business with Israel. A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710,
concerns a contractor’s purchasing activities with respect to Israel. While the statute also
defines a boycott to include “other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations
with Israel,” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-502(1)(A)(i), this restriction does not include criticism
of Act 710 or Israel, calls to boycott Israel, or other types of speech. Familiar canons of
statutory interpretation, such as constitutional avoidance and edjusdem generis, counsel in
favor of interpreting “other actions” to mean commercial conduct similar to the listed items.
See Bakalekos v. Furlow, 410 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Ark. 2011); Edwards v. Campbell, 370
S.W.3d 250, 253 (Ark. 2010).
To prevail under either of its theories, the Times must demonstrate that a refusal to
deal, or its purchasing decisions, fall under the First Amendment, which protects speech and
inherently expressive conduct. See Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“The Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment protection does not apply to
conduct that is not ‘inherently expressive.’”) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst.
Rights, Inc. (“FAIR”), 547 U.S. 47, 66 (2006)).
2. A Boycott Is Neither Speech Nor Inherently Expressive Conduct
A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive
conduct.
9

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 10 of 17

First, a boycott is not purely speech because, after putting aside any accompanying
explanatory speech, a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not
communicate ideas through words or other expressive media. See Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d
at 1042 (“[T]he decision not to buy a particular brand of printer to show support for a
political position, may not be deserving of First Amendment protections on the grounds that
such action is typically only expressive when explanatory speech accompanies it.”); see also
Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995)
(explaining different types of expressive media).
Second, such conduct is not “inherently expressive.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 66. In FAIR,
an association of law schools restricted military recruiting on campuses to express their
opposition to the military’s then-existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Id. at 51.
Congress responded to this restriction by passing the Solomon Amendment, which denied
federal funding to law schools unless they allowed military recruiters to have equal access
to campuses. Id. The law schools asserted that the law violated the First Amendment, id.,
but a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such conduct was “not
inherently expressive” because the actions “were expressive only because the law schools
accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it.” Id. at 66 (emphasis added).
Specifically, “[a]n observer who s[aw] military recruiters interviewing away from the
law school” would have “no way of knowing” why recruiters were interviewing off-campus
absent any explanatory speech. Id. Further, explanatory speech describing the purpose of

10

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 11 of 17

the military restriction did not transform the law school’s unexpressive conduct into
expressive conduct. Id. “[I]f combining speech and conduct were enough to create
expressive conduct, a regulated party could always transform conduct into ‘speech’ simply
by talking about it.” Id.
FAIR is controlling. See Jordahl v. Brnovich, Case No. 18-16896, Dkt. No. 26, slip
op. at 5 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018) (order denying stay of preliminary injunction) (Ikuta, J.,
dissenting). Like the law schools’ decision to prevent military recruiters from coming to
campus, the decision to engage in a primary or secondary boycott of Israel is “expressive
only if it is accompanied by explanatory speech.” Id. Until then, the motivations behind a
contractor’s private purchasing decisions are entirely unknown to the public.
It is highly unlikely that, absent any explanatory speech, an external observer would
ever notice that a contractor is engaging in a primary or secondary boycott of Israel. Very
few people readily know which types of goods are Israeli, and even fewer are able to keep
track of which businesses sell to Israel. Still fewer, if any, would be able to point to the fact
that the absence of certain goods from a contractor’s office mean that the contractor is
engaged in a boycott of Israel. See id.; c.f. FAIR, 547 U.S. at 66.
Instead, an observer would simply believe that the types of products located at the
contractor’s office reflect its commercial, as opposed to its political, preferences. In most,
if not all cases, a contractor would have to explain to an observer that it is engaging in a
boycott for the observer to have any idea that a boycott is taking place. And under FAIR, the
11

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 12 of 17

fact that such conduct may be subsequently explained by speech does not mean that this
conduct is, or can be, transformed into inherently expressive conduct. 547 U.S. at 66 (“The
fact that . . . explanatory speech is necessary is strong evidence that . . . conduct . . . is not so
inherently expressive that it warrants protection.”); see also Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v.
Allied Int’l, Inc., 456 U.S. 212, 226 (1982) (“It would seem even clearer that conduct
designed not to communicate but to coerce merits still less consideration under the First
Amendment.”).
The Arkansas Times’s argument that an individual’s refusal to deal, or his purchasing
decisions, when taken in connection with a larger social movement, become inherently
expressive is well-taken but ultimately unpersuasive. Such an argument is foreclosed by
FAIR, as individual law schools were effectively boycotting military recruiters as part of a
larger protest against the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
For these reasons, the First Amendment does not protect the Arkansas Times’s
purchasing decisions or refusal to deal with Israel.
3. No Unqualified Constitutional Right To Boycott
The Times’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne
Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) creates an unfettered, black-letter right to engage in
political boycotts is unpersuasive.
Claiborne concerned a primary boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson,
Mississippi by civil rights activists in order to protest racial discrimination. 458 U.S. at
12

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 13 of 17

899–900. The boycotters’ constitutional rights were being violated by local government
officials, many of whom also owned the businesses being boycotted. Id. The Supreme Court
observed that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a
complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force
governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution
itself.” Id. at 914.
Crucially, Claiborne did not “address purchasing decisions or other non-expressive
conduct.” Jordahl, Case No. 18-16896, Dkt. No. 26 slip op. at 5 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018)
(order denying stay of preliminary injunction) (Ikuta, J., dissenting); see also FTC v. Superior
Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 426–27 (1990). Rather, the Court arrived at its
decision only after carefully inspecting the various elements of the boycott, which consisted
of meetings, speeches, and non-violent picketing. Claiborne, 458 U.S. at 907–08. It
concluded that “[e]ach of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that
is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. The
Court, however, did not hold that individual purchasing decisions were protected by the First
Amendment. See id.
Similarly, under Claiborne, the Times may write and send representatives to meetings,
speeches, and picketing events in opposition to Israel’s policies, free from any state
interference. It may even call upon others to boycott Israel, write in support of such boycotts,
and engage in picketing and pamphleteering to that effect. This does not mean, however, that

13

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 14 of 17

its decision to refuse to deal, or to refrain from purchasing certain goods, is protected by the
First Amendment.
Even if Claiborne stands for the proposition that the act of refusing to deal enjoys
First Amendment protection, such a right is limited in scope. The Court emphasized that the
boycotters in Claiborne “sought to vindicate rights of equality and freedom that lie at the
heart of the Fourteenth Amendment itself.” Id. at 914. Consequently, Claiborne applies to
nonviolent, primary political boycotts to vindicate particular statutory or constitutional
interests. 458 U.S. at 914; see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486
U.S. 492, 508 (1988). But see Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1041. This understanding was
reiterated in FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, where the Court explained
that its decision in Claiborne was based on its particular facts—namely, a primary boycott
by those whose constitutional rights were being infringed upon and against those who were
infringing upon those rights. 493 U.S. at 426–27.
This, however, does not include political boycotts directed towards foreign
governments concerning issues that do not bear on any domestic legal interest.

In

International Longshoremen’s Association, a case that was decided just months before
Claiborne, the Court held that a labor union’s secondary boycott of Soviet goods to protest
the U.S.S.R.’s invasion of Afghanistan was not protected by the First Amendment. 456 U.S.
at 212. Although the union’s boycott was clearly motivated by political interests, see id. at
223–26, the Court unanimously held that a prohibition of such a boycott did “not infringe

14

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 15 of 17

upon the First Amendment rights of the [union] and its members.” Id. at 226. If one simply
substitutes the words “labor union,” “Soviet,” “U.S.S.R.,” and “Afghanistan” with
“newspaper,” “Israeli,” “Israel,” and “West Bank,” then it becomes clear that International
Longshoremen’s Association is largely the same case as the Times’s.
While International Longshoremen’s Association was decided against the broader
context of federal labor law, the Court held that there is no unqualified right to boycott or a
constitutional right to refuse to deal, or perhaps no First Amendment interest in boycotting
at all. See id. It appears that Claiborne, which immediately followed International
Longshoremen’s Association, created a narrow exception to this rule based on particular facts
that are not present here.
The Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed these aspects of Claiborne and International
Longshoremen’s Association.

See Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food &

Commercial Workers Union, Local 655, 39 F.3d 191 (8th Cir. 1994). In Beverly Hills, a
union’s distribution of handbills to promote a consumer boycott of a grocery store was
protected by the First Amendment and a complete defense to the store’s claim of tortious
interference. Id. at 196–97. Applying Claiborne, the Eighth Circuit noted that peaceful
pamphleteering was independently protected by the First Amendment. Id. It did not hold,
however, that refusals to deal or commercial purchasing decisions are protected by the First
Amendment. Further, if Beverly Hills does stand for such a proposition, it appears, like
Claiborne, limited to the fact that the union was promoting the boycott to vindicate a

15

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 16 of 17

statutory or constitutional interest—namely, to protest the grocery store’s discriminatory
treatment of black workers. In contrast, the purpose of the union’s boycott in International
Longshoremen’s Association was not to vindicate any such statutory or constitutional
interest.
For these reasons, Claiborne does not hold that individual purchasing decisions are
constitutionally protected, nor does it create an unqualified right to engage in political
boycotts. In the years following Claiborne, it does not appear that the Supreme Court or any
court of appeals has extended Claiborne in such a manner. See, e.g., Superior Court Trial
Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. at 426; Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., 486 U.S. at 492; Jews for
Jesus, Inc. v. Jewish Cmty. Relations Council of N.Y., Inc., 968 F.2d 286, 297 (2d Cir. 1992).
4. Conclusion
The Arkansas Times is unlikely to succeed on either of its theories because, as
discussed above, a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is not speech, inherently
expressive activity, or subject to independent constitutional protection under Claiborne.
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS
Because engaging in a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor
inherently expressive conduct, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the
Arkansas Times has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Defendants’ motion to dismiss
[Doc. No. 15] is therefore granted.
16

 Case 4:18-cv-00914-BSM Document 23 Filed 01/23/19 Page 17 of 17

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Arkansas Times’s motion for a preliminary injunction
[Doc. No. 2] is denied, and defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 15] is granted.
Defendants’ motion for leave to file a reply brief [Doc. No. 22] is denied as moot. This case
is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January 2019.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17