essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment," Smith wrote in the majority opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in a 6–3 decision. Smith, writing for the majority of an 11-judge en banc panel, concluded that an ordinance of the City of Redondo Beach, California that barred day laborers from soliciting work from occupants of motor vehicles violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Smith, writing for the majority, held that a photojournalist might have a First Amendment right to observe wild horse "gathers"—rounding up and removing excess horses—on federal government land. Quoting both James Madison and the theme song to Mister Ed, the opinion remanded the case back to the district court to analyze the photojournalist's claim under Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984), to determine whether horse gathers had historically been open to the press and public, and whether such access plays a significant positive role in the process. Smith, writing for a divided panel, rejected an effort by contributors to California's anti-gay marriage ballot measure, Proposition 8, to shield their identities from disclosure. The opinion rejected a Free Speech Clause challenge to the California requirement that committees report donations made before the election but after the pre-election reporting deadline, and that certain other aspects of the donors' challenges were either moot or not ripe because the information the donors sought to keep confidential had already been published across the internet. Smith, writing for a unanimous panel, concluded that a tattoo artist had standing to bring a facial and an as-applied First Amendment challenge to a city zoning ordinance that restricted the artist's ability to open and operate a tattoo shop. Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Smith held that a high school football coach spoke as a public employee when he would kneel and pray on the 50-yard line immediately after games, in full school apparel, while in view of students and parents. The coach had a professional responsibility, the court reasoned, to communicate demonstratively to students and spectators, which he used to press his particular views upon observers. Because the coach's demonstrative conduct was made in his capacity as a public employee, the school did not illegally retaliate against him when the school ordered the coach not to speak in the manner that he did. In a special concurrence, Smith noted that the school district's action