INDIANA UNIVERSITY CHAPTER OF TURNING POINT USA et al v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
INDIANA UNIVERSITY CHAPTER OF
TURNING POINT USA, et al.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB
)
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, et
al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 92], filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). "Although technically, a [m]otion to
[r]econsider does not exist under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 'governs non-final orders and permits revision at any
time prior to the entry of judgment ….'" Quality Leasing Co. v. Int'l Metals LLC, No.
1:18-cv-01969-TWP-TAB, 2021 WL 252719, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2021) (quoting
Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581, 587 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012)). Rule 54(b) generally serves
"to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."
Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (citation
omitted). Such motions "are appropriate where the court has: (1) patently misunderstood
a party, (2) made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the
parties, or (3) made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Freson v.
Centerpoint Energy Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00075-MPB-RLY, 2020 WL 13574989, at *1 (S.D.
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Ind. Dec. 8, 2020) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d
1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). "Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing
previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the
pendency of the previous motion." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus.,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs argue that the Court's July 21, 2025 Order on Cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment reflects two (related) manifest errors of fact and one manifest error
of law that require reconsideration. The two errors of fact by the Court as identified by
Plaintiffs are, first, that Plaintiffs' All Lives Matter ("ALM") mural application did not
contain a universally recognized symbol, and second, that Defendants denied the ALM
mural application in 2023 solely because it contained words and letters. Plaintiffs argue
in their motion for reconsideration that, contrary to the Court's findings, the undisputed,
designated evidence establishes that Plaintiffs' proposed ALM mural design did contain
universally recognized symbols, to wit, a thin blue line and a thin red line which honored
first responders, and that the ALM mural's words and letters "were merely a sufficient but
not exclusive basis for Defendants to deny it under Section IV(B) of the City's 2022
Policy (i.e., the "anti-speech provision")." Dkt. 92 at 1–2. Plaintiffs contend that the
Court committed legal error by limiting its constitutional analysis only to the "words and
letters" portion of the definition of "speech" in the City's 2022 Policy, rather than
including the entirety of the anti-speech provision as a whole.
Plaintiffs had submitted to the Court a copy of their proposed ALM mural design,
which they had previously submitted to the City and which included the words "All
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Lives" bisected by a blue line and the word "Matter" bisected by a red line. Plaintiffs
also stated in their summary judgment briefing that their proposed mural design
incorporated a blue line and a red line as a symbol of their support for first responders.
However, their submission did not embrace the contention that those lines constituted
"universally recognized symbols" under the Policy, and Plaintiffs failed to develop any
such argument in their summary judgment briefing. Further, neither side adduced any
evidence on summary judgment that the City had at any point identified the red and blue
lines of the design as being violative of the Policy's prohibition against "universally
recognized symbols" in semi-permanent and permanent art, nor informed Plaintiffs that
they would need to remove those lines from the design before the mural could be
approved, nor denied Plaintiffs' mural application, in whole, or in part, because it
included a universally recognized symbol in violation of the Policy's anti-speech
provision.
From the beginning, the primary focus of this litigation was on Plaintiffs' goal of
displaying the "All Lives Matter" message to counter the City's "Black Lives Matter"
street murals. The evidence adduced on summary judgment established that the Board of
Public Works's denial of Plaintiffs' mural application, after determining that Plaintiffs'
proposed design was "inconsistent with Section IV(B) of the Policy and Procedures on
Private Art Installations within the Public Right of Way," was due to the fact that "[t]he
proposal is for an art installation, the proposal is from a private actor, the proposal is to
place art within the public's right of way, the proposal is semi-permanent or permanent
art that is expected to remain in the right of way longer than seven days, and the proposal
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
includes a request to paint the words 'All Lives Matter' within the right of way." Dkt. 77-
10 (emphasis added). The communications between Defendants Rouker and Wason and
Plaintiff Reynolds prior to Plaintiffs submitting their mural application further buttress
our conclusion that the mutual understanding between the parties with regard to the
denial of Plaintiffs' application was that the City's objection to the proposed ALM mural
was based on its inclusion of words and letters, not any universally recognized symbol(s).
In response to being advised by Mr. Rouker that Plaintiffs could submit an alternative
proposal that did not contain "speech," Mr. Reynolds responded, "We will not submit an
alternative proposal that removes the words All Lives Matter." Dkt. 77-9 at 12. The
record before the Court on summary judgment makes clear that neither side ever made
mention of the red and blue lines that were incorporated within the design during the
application process. Accordingly, the Court cannot be deemed to have committed a
manifest error of fact in determining that Plaintiffs' ALM mural application was denied
because it contained words and letters, not because it contained universally recognized
symbols as well.
To the extent Plaintiffs sought to include the red and blue lines in their proposed
ALM mural and have them be considered universally recognized symbols vis-a-vis the
Policy, this contention was never adequately developed by them, though it could have
been, while the summary judgment motion was pending. Their after-the-fact theory is
not a well-taken basis for reconsideration. Even if such a factual error had been
committed by the Court, it did not lead to a manifest error of law as Plaintiffs contend,
because there is no evidence that Plaintiffs' mural application was denied based on its use
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
of universally recognized symbols. Therefore, as applied to Plaintiffs, the portion of the
Policy that "g[a]ve rise to the" First Amendment burden was the anti-speech provision's
prohibition on "words and letters" in semi-permanent and permanent art. TikTok, Inc. v.
Garland, 604 U.S. 56, 72 (2025). Plaintiffs' claim of error by the Court would be at most
an error of reasoning, not a misapprehension as is required for reconsideration.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is not well-taken and
therefore DENIED. The case shall proceed accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	___________________________	11/4/2025	_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Distribution:
William Bock, III
KROGER GARDIS & REGAS
wbock@kgrlaw.com
Keith Andrew Butler
Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP
kbutler@kgrlaw.com
Justin Olson
Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP
jolson@kgrlaw.com
Liberty L. Roberts
CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE & ANTRIM (Noblesville)
lroberts@cchalaw.com
Case 1:22-cv-00458-SEB-TAB Document 110 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>