Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

__NOTOC__Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
ArgueDate=March 18
ArgueYear=1980
DecideDate=June 9
DecideYear=1980
FullName=Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
USVol=447
USPage=74
Citation=100 S.Ct. 2035; 64 L.Ed.2d 741
Prior=Appeal from the Supreme Court of California
Subsequent=
Holding=A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
SCOTUS=1975-1981
Majority=Rehnquist
JoinMajority=Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Stevens
Concurrence=White
Concurrence2=Powell
Concurrence3=Blackmun
LawsApplied=

"Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins", ussc|447|74|1980, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California and several local high school students. [Linda Greenhouse, "Petitioning Upheld at Shopping Malls: High Court Says States May Order Access to Back Free Speech," "New York Times", 10 June 1980, A1.] In American constitutional law, the PruneYard is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:

* under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of "private" shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
* under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an "affirmative" right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a "negative" command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court rejected the shopping center's argument that California's free speech right amounted to a "taking" of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.

The vote to uphold the California decision was unanimous, although three justices disagreed with part of the reasoning in Justice William Rehnquist's opinion for the majority. Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Harry Blackmun filed separate concurring opinions.

Because of the "Pruneyard" case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.

ubsequent developments

Although 39 other states have free speech clauses in their constitutions that look like California's — indeed, California borrowed its clause from a similar one in the New York Constitution — at least 13 of those states have declined to follow California in extending the right of free speech into private shopping centers. [cite journal |last=Mulligan |first=Josh |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2004 |month= |title=Finding A Forum in the Simulated City: Mega Malls, Gated Towns, and the Promise of "Pruneyard" |journal=Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy |volume=13 |issue= |pages=533, 557 |issn=10690565 |url= |accessdate= |quote= → This article is an excellent overview of "Pruneyard's" progeny.] In refusing to follow "Pruneyard", the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision. [See "SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall", 488 N.E.2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985) and "Jacobs v. Major", 407 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 1987).] Only New Jersey, Colorado, and Massachusetts have followed California, albeit with some reservations.

In the two decades since, the Supreme Court of California has become much more conservative, especially after three liberal justices (including Chief Justice Rose Bird) were removed by the electorate in 1986 for their opposition to the death penalty. [cite journal |last=Culver |first=John H. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1998 |month= |title=The transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1977-1997 |journal=Albany Law Review |volume=61 |issue=5 |pages=1461–1490 |issn=00024678 |url= |accessdate= |quote= ]

In the 2001 "Golden Gateway" decision, a 4-3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed "Pruneyard" by holding for a variety of reasons that California's free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes — yet, they also refused to overrule "Pruneyard". ["Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass'n", [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/26C4t1013.htm 26 Cal. 4th 1013] (2001).] Thus, California's right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.

Naturally, the shopping center industry strongly "detests" the "Pruneyard" decision; shopping centers have regularly imposed restrictions on unwanted solicitors and appealed the resulting legal cases in the hope of convincing the California judiciary that "Pruneyard" should be overturned, or at least limited. [Joseph R. Grodin, Calvin R. Massey, and Richard B. Cunningham, "The California State Constitution: A Reference Guide" (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993), 26.] Since "Golden Gateway", decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the "Pruneyard" rule to the actual facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under "Pruneyard". In 1998, Costco's management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.

In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review. ["Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant", [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/96CA4t740.htm 96 Cal. App. 4th 740] (2002).] Costco's stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center at issue in "Pruneyard". As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations — they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of California confronted the "Pruneyard" decision once more, in the context of a complex labor dispute involving San Diego's Fashion Valley Mall (currently owned by Simon Property Group) and the "San Diego Union-Tribune". On December 24, 2007, a 4-3 majority of a sharply divided court once again refused to overrule "Pruneyard", and instead, ruled that under the California Constitution, a union's right of free speech in a shopping center includes the right to hand out leaflets urging patrons to boycott one of the shopping center's tenants. ["Fashion Valley Mall, LLC, v. National Labor Relations Board", [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/42C4t850.htm 42 Cal. 4th 850] (2007).] Justice Ming Chin, in his dissent joined by Justices Marvin Baxter and Carol Corrigan, expressed his sympathy with several of the most common critiques of the "Pruneyard" decision: "Pruneyard" was wrong when decided. In the nearly three decades that have since elapsed, jurisdictions throughout the nation have overwhelmingly rejected it. We should no longer ignore this tide of history. The time has come for us to forthrightly overrule "Pruneyard" and rejoin the rest of the nation in this important area of the law. Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone." ["Id." at 870.]

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Alexander |first=M. C. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1999 |month= |title=Attention, Shoppers: The First Amendment in the Modern Shopping Mall |journal=Arizona Law Review |volume=41 |issue= |pages=1 |issn=0004153X |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Epstein |first=Richard A. |authorlink=Richard Epstein |coauthors= |year=1997 |month= |title=Takings, Exclusivity and Speech: The Legacy of "PruneYard v Robins" |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=21–56 |doi=10.2307/1600196 |url= |accessdate= |quote=

External links

* [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=pruneyard&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0447_0074_ZS.html Cornell University Collection] – U.S. Supreme Court decision
* [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/23C3d899.htm California Continuing Education of the Bar Collection] – California Supreme Court decision
* [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 California Constitution from Official California Legislative Information Site] – Article 1, Declaration of Rights (of which Section 2 was challenged in "Pruneyard")