Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Significance, The State's Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Speech, The First Amendment Concerns, Related Cases

appellant court william supreme

Appellant

Pruneyard Shopping Center and Fred Sahadi, owner

Appellee

Michael Robins, et al.

Appellant's Claim

That a provision of the California Constitution guaranteeing an individual's right to free speech at privately owned shopping centers violates the owner's property and free speech rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

Max L. Gillam, Jr.

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Philip L. Hammer

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

9 June 1980

Decision

Denied the appellant's claim and affirmed the ruling of the California Supreme Court.

Sources

Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt, Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1997.

Additional Topics

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Significance

Although the Court had previously found that the Constitution did not guarantee freedom of speech at privately owned shopping centers, this ruling granted states a greater latitude of freedom under their own constitutions. Starting in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court began to develop the "public forum" doctrine in free speech issues. Controversial protests or leafleting were protected if they occurred…

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - The State's Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Speech

Both the superior court and the California Court of Appeals ruled that the students did not have a federal or state constitutional right of expression at a privately owned shopping center. The state supreme court, however, overruled this decision. In its interpretation of the state constitution, the supreme court said the students had a right of expression and petition on private property, as long…

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - The First Amendment Concerns

On the First Amendment issue, the owner of the center cited a precedent that said states may not force an individual to display any kind of ideological message. The case cited, Wooley v. Maynard (1977) which involved a Jehovah's Witness who covered up the New Hampshire state motto, "Live Free or Die," on his car's license plate. Rehnquist, however, said that case was completely different from Prun…

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Are Malls Public Places?

Should privately owned malls or shopping centers be treated as public places? If the answer is yes, a mall owner cannot restrict the exercise of First Amendment freedoms on his property any more than governments can restrict expression in public places. Proponents contend the general public has essentially unrestricted access to shopping malls. As such, malls serve the functional equivalent of a c…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.