On August 21, 2025, Christian revival organizers filed suit against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that their attempt to host a MayDay USA event on Hollywood Boulevard was derailed by viewpoint discrimination. The federal complaint, lodged in the Central District of California, names Mayor Karen Bass, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell, Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, and Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners President Erroll Southers as defendants. At issue is not simply one gathering but the way Los Angeles decides who can occupy its most famous street.
The Road to Court
MayDay USA is a nationwide revival movement organized by Jenny Donnelly, her husband Robert, and other Christian leaders including Ross Johnston and Pastor Russell Johnson. In May 2025, they staged large outdoor events in New York, Miami, Houston, and Seattle. These gatherings featured worship, preaching, baptisms, and speeches on issues such as abortion, human trafficking, and family structure.
Los Angeles was intended to be the culminating stop on May 31, 2025. Organizers applied for a permit to hold the event on Hollywood Boulevard, a public forum long used for parades and festivals. But instead of receiving approval, they say they encountered a shifting set of requirements and delays.
According to the complaint, city officials initially directed them away from a First Amendment assembly permit and toward a Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) permit, treating their event as if it were a commercial performance rather than protected religious assembly. At various points, the Los Angeles Police Department allegedly required them to obtain signatures from 51 percent of Hollywood Boulevard businesses and warned them to avoid using the word “protest” when soliciting support. In one phone call, LAPD officials referenced unrest at MayDay’s Seattle event, saying, “We heard about what happened in Seattle and can’t have that in Los Angeles” .
Ultimately, three days before the scheduled date, the city denied the requested Hollywood Boulevard permit. Instead, officials suggested relocating to Highland Boulevard, limiting the size of the stage, and shortening the program. When MayDay insisted on Hollywood Boulevard, city officials warned that an unpermitted gathering would be declared an unlawful assembly.
On May 31, the plaintiffs appeared anyway. They spoke briefly, without the stage or program they had envisioned, under threat of dispersal. The complaint describes this as a stripped-down expression of their message, forced into “constitutional orphan status.”
Disparate Treatment Alleged
The lawsuit’s core claim is disparate treatment. Plaintiffs note that in April 2025, the city permitted the Thai New Year Songkran Festival on Hollywood Boulevard. In June 2025, one week after their denied event, Los Angeles issued a permit for the LA Pride Parade, which drew more than 100,000 attendees. Later that same month, Hollywood Carnival’s “Parade Party” also marched on the Boulevard .
The complaint argues that if logistical concerns were truly the reason for denial, these other events should have faced similar restrictions. Instead, the plaintiffs claim, the city facilitated them while blocking MayDay. For constitutional purposes, this contrast is critical. Once a government opens a public forum to expressive activity, it must apply its rules in a viewpoint-neutral manner.
The Legal Backdrop
American courts have long treated public streets as the quintessential venue for free speech. In Hague v. CIO (1939), the Supreme Court wrote that streets and parks “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public” (Cornell Law). When government restricts use of such forums, it must do so with narrowly tailored rules that serve significant public interests without discriminating based on content.
The concept of the “heckler’s veto” is also relevant. Courts have repeatedly rejected the idea that speech can be suppressed because it might provoke hostile reactions. In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court overturned a conviction of a priest whose speech incited protests, affirming that a function of free speech is to “invite dispute” (Justia). Later cases, including Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), reinforced that governments cannot impose variable burdens on speech based on anticipated opposition (Wikipedia).
Religious expression in public forums has also been protected. In Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995), the Court held that a Ku Klux Klan cross display could not be excluded from a public square solely because it was controversial (Wikipedia). The principle is that when access is open, the government cannot deny it because of disapproval of the viewpoint.
What Comes Next
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Los Angeles’s permitting system, a declaration that it is unconstitutional, and damages for alleged violations of free speech and religious liberty. The city has not yet filed a formal response in court. Officials are expected to argue that the denial was rooted in safety concerns and administrative rules rather than viewpoint discrimination.
The case presents a test of how far cities can go in exercising discretion over permits for expressive activity. If the plaintiffs prevail, Los Angeles may be required to revise its permitting process with clearer standards to prevent the appearance of favoritism. If the city wins, it will affirm the latitude of municipalities to restrict events they deem risky, even when the restrictions fall unevenly.
What cannot be ignored is the broader principle. A street that welcomes some parades but not others because of their message is no longer a neutral public forum. It becomes a curated stage. That is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
Sources:
-
Verified Complaint, Jenny Donnelly et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07870, filed Aug. 21, 2025 .
-
Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute.
-
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center.
-
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), Wikipedia.
-
Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953), Wikipedia.
-
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), Wikipedia.
AI Disclaimer: This op-ed was prepared with the assistance of AI using court filings and public legal sources. It is not legal advice.