No. Her arrest was unconstitutional. Just because a company owns the land doesn't mean it can ignore the Constitution. Since the town was open for everyone and acted like a public space, people's rights to free speech and religion there are more important than the company's property rights. The people living in company towns have the same right to receive information as anyone else.

Yes. Her arrest was perfectly legal. This was private property, and the owner has the right to control what happens there. She could have easily walked 30 feet to the public highway to hand out her flyers without trespassing. The court shouldn't force a private owner to allow activities on their property that they disagree with.

No. The arrest was unconstitutional. It doesn't matter who legally owns the deed to the land. If it looks like a town and functions like a town, it should be treated like a town for free speech purposes. We shouldn't let technical property laws like 'trespassing' get in the way of fundamental rights.

Yes. The Court said that even though the company owned the town, it was being used like a public space, so the company couldn't stop Marsh from sharing her religious ideas on the sidewalk. They said that when a property owner lets the public use their space, they have to follow the same rules as the government about allowing free speech and freedom of religion. The Court believed that these freedoms are very important and come before property rights.

The dissenting judges disagreed. They said that property owners should be able to stop people from doing religious things on their land, even if they let the public use it for other reasons. They worried this decision would make it hard for owners to control their property and said Marsh could have given out her papers on the public streets nearby instead. They believed that the rights of property owners should be respected.

Justice Frankfurter agreed with the main decision that freedom of speech and religion applied in the company town, but for different reasons. He said that because the town was being used by the public, that was more important than the technical rules about who owned it. He believed that when these big constitutional freedoms are involved, we shouldn't just look at trespassing laws to decide what's allowed.

Yes. We hold that even though the company owned the town, it was being used like a public space, so the company could not stop Marsh from sharing her religious ideas on the sidewalk. When a property owner lets the public use their space, it must follow the same rules as the government about allowing free speech and freedom of religion. We believe these freedoms are very important and come before property rights.

No. I dissent because property owners should be able to stop people from handing out religious papers on their land, even if they let the public use it for other reasons. This decision makes it hard for owners to control their property. Marsh could have given out her papers on the public streets nearby instead. We believe the rights of property owners should be respected.

I concur with the main decision that freedom of speech and religion apply in the company town, but for different reasons. Because the town is being used by the public, that is more important than the technical rules about who owns it. When these big constitutional freedoms are involved, we should not just look at trespassing laws to decide what's allowed.

—the Supreme Court held that first amendment rights of one distributing religious literature applied to the privately owned streets of a company town.

"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it

It is true that the Supreme Court has found state action present when a private entity exercises powers "traditionally exclusively reserved to the State."

The Court reasoned that, although the town was privately owned, it was subject to the strictures of the First Amendment because the operation of a town is a public function.

—the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to impose criminal punishment on a Jehovah's Witness for distributing religious literature on a company-owned sidewalk in a company town.

When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position

Furthermore, it is immaterial if the easement's principal purpose is to facilitate pedestrian traffic.

Generally applicable statutes that purport to regulate nonspeech repeatedly have been struck down if they unduly penalize speech, political or otherwise.

Where a property owner invites the public for nearly limitless use, and thereby replicates the environment and function of a downtown district in facilitating mixed commercial and social endeavors, the balance of rights tips in favor of the individual seeking to exercise rights guaranteed in such public forums.

—areas of private property were found to be so completely dedicated to public uses as to be deemed public places for the exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Yes. Applying the state trespass statute to Marsh's activities violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for public use, the more his rights become circumscribed by the constitutional rights of those who use it. Since the town of Chickasaw is functionally indistinguishable from any other municipality and is open to the public, the corporation cannot curtail the inhabitants' fundamental liberties of press and religion. When balancing the constitutional rights of property owners against the people's rights to freedom of press and religion, the latter occupy a preferred position. A state cannot enforce a corporation's rules to restrict these fundamental liberties in a community that serves a public function.

No. The application of the state trespass statute does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This decision extends First Amendment protections to private property against the owner's will, a novel constitutional doctrine. The Alabama trespass statute is a valid law protecting private property rights, which are also constitutionally protected. The town's owner permitted public use for business purposes but was not required to allow its property to be used for religious exhortations. Marsh could have exercised her rights on the public highway just 30 feet away without trespassing. The rights of the property owner should not be outweighed by the interests of a trespasser, even one acting in the name of religion or free speech.

Yes. The application of the state statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The dispositive fact is not who holds the title to the property, but that a company-owned town is, in its community aspects, a town. Technical state-law property definitions of 'dedication' or 'trespass' are too tenuous to control the scope of vital liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. When a private entity's property becomes a community, its community aspects are decisive in resolving the clash between the owner's rights and an individual's freedom of religion and speech. However, the majority's reliance on Commerce Clause analogies is unhelpful, as the First Amendment operates as a direct denial of governmental power, which is a different analysis.

Yes. The Court held that Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation's ownership of the town of Chickasaw did not give it the right to prohibit the free distribution of religious literature on its sidewalks in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that because the company town functioned like any other public town, it was subject to the same constitutional limitations, regardless of its private ownership. The more an owner opens up their property to public use, the more their rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of the public. The Court emphasized that the rights of property owners must be balanced against the preferred position of First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, the state cannot criminally punish someone for distributing religious literature on the sidewalks of a company town against the wishes of the town's management.

The dissent argued that the Court's decision improperly expanded the reach of the First Amendment to private property, allowing individuals to trespass against the owner's wishes under the guise of exercising their constitutional rights. Justice Reed contended that property owners have the right to prohibit religious activities on their premises, even if they have opened their property to public use for other limited purposes. He warned that the majority's rule would lead to arbitrary line-drawing and emphasized that Marsh had alternative channels to distribute literature on the public highways near the company town. The dissent maintained that the constitutional rights of property owners should not be outweighed by the interests of trespassers, even those exercising First Amendment freedoms.

Justice Frankfurter concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the First Amendment freedoms of press and religion applied to the sidewalks of the company town. However, he disagreed with the majority's reliance on arguments related to the Commerce Clause, believing that this distinct area of constitutional law did not help resolve the delicate balance of freedoms at issue under the First Amendment. Frankfurter emphasized that, in the context of the First Amendment, the public community aspects of a company town controlled over technical property distinctions. He argued that where constitutional civil liberties and property rights clash, the technical trespass laws should not solely dictate the scope of vital First Amendment freedoms.

Yes. We hold that Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation's ownership of the town of Chickasaw does not give it the right to prohibit the free distribution of religious literature on its sidewalks in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We reason that because the company town functions like any other public town, it is subject to the same constitutional limitations, regardless of its private ownership. The more an owner opens up the property to public use, the more the owner's rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of the public. We emphasize that the rights of property owners must be balanced against the preferred position of First Amendment freedoms. Therefore, the state cannot criminally punish someone for distributing religious literature on the sidewalks of a company town against the wishes of the town's management.

No. I dissent. This decision improperly expands the reach of the First Amendment to private property, allowing individuals to trespass against the owner's wishes under the guise of exercising their constitutional rights. Property owners have the right to prohibit religious activities on their premises, even if they have opened their property to public use for other limited purposes. The majority's rule will lead to arbitrary line-drawing, and there are alternative channels to distribute literature on the public highways near the company town. The constitutional rights of property owners should not be outweighed by the interests of trespassers, even those exercising First Amendment freedoms.

Yes, I concur in the judgment. The First Amendment freedoms of press and religion apply to the sidewalks of this company town. However, I disagree with the majority's reliance on arguments related to the Commerce Clause, which does not resolve the delicate balance of rights at issue under the First Amendment. In the context of the First Amendment, the public community aspects of a company town control over technical property distinctions. Where constitutional civil liberties and property rights clash, technical trespass laws should not solely dictate the scope of vital First Amendment freedoms.

Marsh v. Alabama

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot