Can a private shopping center ban the distribution of unrelated handbills on its property without violating First Amendment rights?

Lloyd Corp., Ltd. owns and operates Lloyd Center, a large 50-acre retail shopping complex in Portland, Oregon. The Center houses over 60 commercial businesses and professional offices, with both open and covered areas, including parking for over 1,000 vehicles. While privately owned, the Center is open to the public and employs security guards with full police authority. Some stores within the complex are only accessible via privately owned walkways. The Center maintains a policy against handbill distribution on its premises.

On November 14, 1968, Donald Tanner, Betsy Wheeler, and Susan Roberts entered Lloyd Center and began distributing handbills promoting a meeting to protest the draft and the Vietnam War. Security guards approached them, informed them that handbilling was not permitted, and suggested they move to public sidewalks outside the Center. To avoid arrest, the respondents left the premises. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against Lloyd Corp., Ltd. The Center generally forbids political activities, with exceptions made for some organizations like the American Legion and Salvation Army for limited solicitation, and occasional use of the auditorium by presidential candidates.

Respondents initiated legal proceedings by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The District Court ruled in favor of the respondents, granting them declaratory and injunctive relief. Subsequently, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's decision. Following this affirmation, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case, bringing it to its current stage in the judicial process.

(Powell, J.)

Yes. A private shopping center can ban the distribution of unrelated handbills on its property without violating First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not create an unrestricted right to conduct expressive activities on private property. Property does not lose its private character merely because the public is invited to use it for designated purposes. The rights of free speech and assembly do not extend to privately owned shopping centers, particularly when the expressive activity is unrelated to the center's operations. This principle stems from the fundamental distinction between public and private property in First Amendment jurisprudence. Unlike government-owned spaces traditionally serving as forums for public discourse, privately owned shopping centers are not transformed into public forums simply by being open to the public for commercial purposes. The property owner retains the right to control the use of their property, including restricting certain forms of expression. This decision balances the interests of property owners with free speech rights, recognizing that adequate alternative avenues for communication often exist in public spaces surrounding private commercial establishments. The ruling affirms that the state action doctrine limits the reach of constitutional protections to government actions, not private conduct. It also acknowledges that expanding First Amendment rights to private property would infringe on the property owners' own constitutional rights. The decision maintains a clear delineation between public and private spheres, preserving property rights while ensuring that traditional public forums remain available for free expression.

Dissent (Marshall, J.) There is no valid distinction between this case and Logan Valley. The First Amendment should protect the respondents' right to distribute handbills in the shopping center. The majority's decision unduly restricts free speech in spaces that have become modern public forums. This ruling fails to recognize the evolving nature of public spaces and the need to safeguard First Amendment rights in areas where people commonly gather. The Court's narrow interpretation of constitutional protections in this context may have far-reaching consequences for future free speech cases in privately owned but publicly accessible spaces.