Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center

California Supreme Court
153 Cal. Rptr. 854, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 592 P.2d 341 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The free speech and petitioning clauses of the California Constitution provide broader protection than the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and require large, privately-owned shopping centers open to the public to permit peaceful expressive activities, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.

Facts:

Pruneyard Shopping Center is a 21-acre privately owned complex open to the public for commercial purposes.
Pruneyard maintained a strict policy prohibiting any visitor from engaging in expressive activity, including circulating petitions, not directly related to the center's commercial purposes.
A group of high school students set up a card table in a corner of Pruneyard's central courtyard.
The students were peacefully soliciting signatures for a petition opposing a United Nations resolution against 'Zionism' and discussing their concerns with shoppers.
A Pruneyard security guard informed the students that their conduct violated the center's regulations.
The guard's superior instructed the students to leave, suggesting they could continue their activities on the public sidewalk at the center's perimeter.
The students immediately complied and left the premises.

Procedural Posture:

The high school students (appellants) sued Pruneyard Shopping Center in California trial court.
The students requested an injunction to prohibit Pruneyard from denying them access to circulate their petition.
The trial court rejected the students' request and denied the injunction, ruling in favor of Pruneyard Shopping Center.
The students (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the California Supreme Court.

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 the California Constitution's protection of free speech and petitioning rights require a privately-owned shopping center, which is open to the public, to permit individuals to engage in peaceful, expressive activity on its premises?

Opinions:

Majority - Opinion of the Court

Yes. The California Constitution's free speech and petitioning clauses require privately-owned shopping centers to permit peaceful expressive activity on their property. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, which limited such rights under the First Amendment, does not prevent a state from providing broader speech protections under its own constitution. States retain the power to regulate the use of private property for the public welfare, and protecting the rights of speech and petitioning is a valid public interest, particularly as shopping centers have supplanted traditional public forums like downtown business districts. This right is not absolute and owners may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to ensure that expressive activities do not interfere with normal business operations.

Dissenting - Richardson, J.

No. The California Constitution cannot be used to defeat the federally protected private property rights of the shopping center owner established in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. The Lloyd decision was not merely a First Amendment case but also a property rights case, holding that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect private property owners from such intrusions when adequate alternative channels of communication exist. The trial court found that such alternatives were available to the students. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federally protected property rights must prevail over conflicting state constitutional speech protections.

Analysis:

This landmark decision solidified the 'independent state grounds' doctrine, confirming that state constitutions can serve as a source of individual liberties more expansive than those granted by the U.S. Constitution. By classifying large, privately-owned shopping centers as quasi-public forums for the purpose of state constitutional law, the court significantly reshaped the balance between private property rights and public rights of expression. This ruling created a precedent that a minority of other states would later follow, leading to a national split on whether private commercial properties must accommodate expressive activities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"