Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Term: 1979
Important Dates
Argument: March 18, 1980
Decided: June 9, 1980
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
William Rehnquist • Warren Burger • William Brennan • Potter Stewart • Thurgood Marshall • John Stevens • Byron White • Lewis Powell • Harry Blackmun
Concurring
Marshall • White (in part) • Powell (in part)


Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 1980, during the court's 1979-1980 term. The court affirmed a California Supreme Court ruling holding that the California Constitution permitted "individuals reasonably to exercise free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited."[1] The court also agreed that California's constitutional speech protections did not conflict with Pruneyard's federal rights.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A group of high school students filed a suit against Pruneyard Shopping Center after they were told they could not solicit signatures in opposition to a United Nations resolution on Pruneyard's private property. The shopping center argued that federal property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and free speech rights under the First Amendment, included a right to exclude others from the shopping center. The students argued that the shopping center denied their right to petition under Article 1, Sections 2-3 of the Constitution of California and that their presence did not violate Pruneyard's federal rights.
  • The issue: Did Pruneyard's regulations violate the students' free speech rights?[2]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the California Supreme Court's ruling that "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised," on private property did not constitute a taking of that property under the U.S. Constitution.[1]


    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 9, 1980: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court's ruling
    • March 18, 1980: Oral argument
    • March 30, 1979: The California Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling, stating that Pruneyard could not exclude individuals from free "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised," on their property, under the Constitution of California.[1]

    Background

    A group of high school students (the appellees in the Supreme Court case) filed a suit against Pruneyard Shopping Center (the appellant) after they were told they could not solicit signatures in opposition to a United Nations resolution on Pruneyard's private property. The shopping center's regulations prohibited "any visitor or tenant from engaging in any publicly expressive activity that is not directly related to the center's commercial purposes."[1]

    Pruneyard argued that federal property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and free speech rights under the First Amendment, included a right to exclude others from the shopping center. The students argued that the shopping center denied their right to petition under Article 1, Sections 2-3 of the California Constitution and that their presence did not violate Pruneyard's federal rights.[1]

    The trial court and the California Court of Appeals both ruled that the students were not entitled under the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution to exercise their public right to free speech on the shopping center's private property. The California Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling, "Holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned."[1] According to the California Supreme Court, the exercise of free speech and petitioning did not infringe on Pruneyard's property rights under the U.S. Constitution.

    California constitutional text

    Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution states the following:

    “ Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.[3][4] ”
    —California Constitution, Article I, Section 2

    Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution states the following:

    “ The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.[3][4] ”
    —California Constitution, Article I, Section 3

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    • "Did Pruneyard's regulations violate the students' free speech rights?"

    Outcome

    Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Stevens joined. Justices White, Powell, and Blackmun filed opinions concurring in part, and Justice Marshall filed a concurring opinion. The court affirmed the California Supreme Court's ruling that "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised," on private property did not constitute a taking of that property under the U.S. Constitution.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Rehnquist wrote,

    “ We conclude that neither appellants' federally recognized property rights nor their First Amendment right have been infringed by the California Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right of appellees to exercise state-protected rights of expression and petition on appellants' property. The judgment of the Supreme Court of California is therefore affirmed.[4] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.


    Audio

    Listen to the recorded oral argument here.

    Transcript

    Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Cornell Law School, "Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (No. 79-289)," accessed January 23, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Oyez, "PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins," accessed January 23, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 California State Legislature, "California Constitution," accessed January 24, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins&oldid=9133835"