Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn.
(1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When government property is not a traditional or designated public forum, the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech, including limiting access based on speaker status and subject matter.
Facts:
- The Metropolitan School District of Perry Township operated an internal mail system for official school business, though some private organizations like the YMCA and Cub Scouts were occasionally permitted to use it.
- Prior to 1977, two rival teacher unions, the Perry Education Association (PEA) and the Perry Local Educators’ Association (PLEA), had equal access to the mail system.
- In 1977, an election was held, and PEA was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the teachers in the school district.
- Following the election, PEA and the School District negotiated a collective bargaining agreement.
- This agreement granted PEA exclusive access to the teachers' mailboxes and the interschool mail system, while expressly denying access to any other school employee organization.
- PLEA was not prevented from using other means of communication, such as school bulletin boards and holding meetings on school property after hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Perry Local Educators’ Association (PLEA) and two of its members sued the Perry Education Association (PEA) and members of the School Board in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, PEA and the School Board.
- PLEA, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, finding the exclusive access policy unconstitutional.
- PEA, as the defendant-appellee in the circuit court, sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted 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 public school district's policy of granting the exclusive bargaining representative for its teachers sole access to its internal mail system, while denying access to a rival union, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The denial of access to the rival union does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments because the school's internal mail system is not a public forum. The existence of a right of access to public property and the standard for evaluating limitations on that right depend on the character of the property. The Court identified three types of forums: traditional public forums (streets and parks), designated public forums (property opened by the state for expressive activity), and nonpublic forums. The school mail system falls into the third category as it is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication. On government property that is not a public forum, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes and may make distinctions based on speaker identity and subject matter, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint. The distinction drawn by the school district is reasonable because it is based on the official status of PEA as the exclusive bargaining representative, a status which carries special duties and responsibilities that PLEA does not share. Granting exclusive access helps PEA perform its duties and promotes labor peace within the schools.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The exclusive-access provision violates the First Amendment because it constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The central issue is not whether the mail system is a public forum, but whether the government is discriminating against a particular viewpoint. By granting access to the incumbent union while denying it to a rival, the school board is favoring one perspective on labor relations and suppressing a critical, opposing view. This is censorship in its purest form. The government may not impose restrictions that discriminate among viewpoints on subjects it has opened for discussion, regardless of the forum's classification. The state's justifications, such as preserving labor peace and facilitating the incumbent's duties, are not compelling enough to justify this infringement on core First Amendment rights, especially when the policy is not narrowly tailored.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the three-tiered forum analysis (traditional, designated, and nonpublic) that has become the dominant framework for resolving free speech claims on government property. By creating the 'nonpublic forum' category, the Court granted the government substantial authority to regulate speech in a wide variety of its roles, such as proprietor, employer, and educator. The decision clarifies that the government has much greater latitude to restrict speech on property not traditionally open to the public, provided its restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. This framework has profoundly influenced subsequent First Amendment jurisprudence concerning speech in schools, airports, military bases, and government workplaces.
Unlock the full brief for Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn.