Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.
482 U.S. 569 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government regulation that prohibits all First Amendment activities in a particular forum is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face because it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech and is not susceptible to a limiting construction.
Facts:
- The Board of Airport Commissioners for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) adopted Resolution No. 13787.
- The resolution declared that the Central Terminal Area at LAX was not open for "First Amendment activities" by any individual or entity.
- The resolution directed the City Attorney to institute litigation against any person or entity engaging in such prohibited activities.
- Alan Howard Snyder, a minister for the nonprofit religious corporation Jews for Jesus, Inc., was distributing free religious literature on a pedestrian walkway within the LAX Central Terminal Area.
- A Department of Airports peace officer stopped Snyder, informed him that his actions violated the resolution, and requested that he leave the airport.
- The officer warned Snyder that the city would take legal action against him if he refused to comply.
- Snyder complied with the officer's request, ceased distributing the literature, and left the terminal.
Procedural Posture:
- Jews for Jesus, Inc., and Alan Howard Snyder filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Board of Airport Commissioners, challenging the resolution's constitutionality.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Jews for Jesus, holding that the LAX terminal was a traditional public forum and the resolution was facially unconstitutional.
- The Board of Airport Commissioners (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, agreeing that the airport was a traditional public forum and the resolution was unconstitutional.
- The Board of Airport Commissioners (petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a resolution that bans all "First Amendment activities" within an airport terminal violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. A resolution that bans all First Amendment activities in an airport terminal is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. The Court declined to decide whether the airport is a public forum, finding instead that the resolution's absolute ban on expressive activity is so sweeping that it is unconstitutional regardless of the forum's status. The resolution purports to create a "First Amendment Free Zone," prohibiting not only disruptive activities but also protected expression like talking, reading, or wearing a political button. The Court reasoned that no conceivable governmental interest could justify such an absolute prohibition of speech, even in a nonpublic forum. Furthermore, the resolution is not fairly subject to a narrowing construction, as its language is unambiguous, and any attempt to limit it to "non-airport-related" speech would be unconstitutionally vague and grant officials unfettered discretion.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. While joining the Court's opinion and its conclusion that the resolution is unconstitutionally overbroad, this concurrence is written to emphasize that the decision should not be interpreted as indicating that the majority considers LAX to be a traditional public forum. Justice White suggests that the Court should have decided the public forum question, as it was one of the issues on which certiorari was granted, rather than postponing it for a future case.
Analysis:
This case serves as a quintessential application of the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine. The Court's decision to invalidate the resolution on its face, without classifying the airport as a public or nonpublic forum, is highly significant. This approach allowed the Court to strike down an excessively broad law while avoiding the more complex and contentious issue of forum analysis in modern transportation hubs. The ruling establishes that even in places where the government has significant interests in maintaining order, a regulation cannot be so sweeping as to criminalize the universe of expressive activity, reinforcing the principle that laws restricting speech must be carefully tailored.
