Lawyers for the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority have asked the full 13-member U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear its challenge to a 2-1 ruling in which a panel from the same court held that RDU is violating the First Amendment with its ban on newspaper coin vending racks.
The Fourth Circuit panel upheld three earlier rulings by U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle in favor of The News & Observer and three other newspaper companies that sued RDU in 2004.
In a 24-page brief submitted Friday afternoon to the court in Richmond, RDU's lawyers argued that, in its March 12 ruling, the Fourth Circuit improperly substituted its own judgment for that of officials and experts employed by the airport authority.
The panel also misapplied the precedents set in an earlier Fourth Circuit ruling that overturned a South Carolina airport's newsrack ban, RDU lawyers said. RDU maintains that its newsrack ban is reasonable because most travelers can buy newspapers from RDU shops, and because RDU needs to enhance airport profits:
The Majority can be read to take from public airport authorities control over their passenger terminals, abrogating their power and discretion to operate their airports by balancing the myriad competing imperatives that safe and profitable airport operation requires. The impact across this Circuit will be a significant interference with the operation of public airports.
Boyle issued a summary judgment in November 2008 that RDU must allow the newspapers to install news racks at the airport, which is owned by local governments in Durham and Wake counties. He later ordered the airport authority to pay the newspapers' legal bills, and refused to grant RDU's request to hold a trial on the case.
RDU argues that Boyle should have held a trial on factual and legal issues in dispute. RDU also wants to overturn the ruling that it reimburse the newspapers' legal expenses.
John A. Bussian of Raleigh, a lawyer for the newspaper publishers, said Saturday the plaintiffs' legal bills are approaching $400,000. RDU said its legal bills reached $503,000 before the latest appeal was filed.
Boyle and the Fourth Circuit panel agreed with the newspaper publishers that RDU's news rack ban violates their constitutional right to disseminate the news. The publishers argued that they cannot depend on airport shops always to make their newspapers easily available for all travelers at all hours.
Bruce Siceloff reports on traffic and transportation. A News & Observer reporter and editor since 1976, he took over the 
Comments
I would hope RDU would have
Sun, 03/28/2010 - 00:18 — ncsu_gradI would hope RDU would have better things to spend its time on than trying to force people to buy newspapers from the vendors in the airport. Maybe if the cash registers were correctly programmed to not charge sales tax on the paper people would buy them there rather than from the machine. If Starbucks can manage to ring up a newspaper without sales tax, you'd think the airport vendors could as well.
The RDU Airport Authority
Sat, 03/27/2010 - 23:21 — ctillThe RDU Airport Authority board has gone insane. It's time to stop this nonsense. When you park at RDU, your money is going to lawyers.
airport news rack ban
Sat, 03/27/2010 - 17:00 — annerussellRDU's news rack ban violates MY constitutional right to read the news without being charged a sales tax. The news racks do not charge tax, because tax on newspapers violates the law. But the RDU shops wrongly charge tax on newspapers. This is why I refuse to buy newspapers from the shops. If the shops want my business, they can honor selling newspapers tax-free. RDU is in the wrong, and the newspaper publishers are in the right. I am a journalism professor and former newspaper reporter, columnist, and editor, and I know what I'm talking about.
another $1,000,000 wasted
Sat, 03/27/2010 - 16:26 — tboard47another $1,000,000 wasted on unproductive legal fees