Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner

In other cases, the courts held that property rights were violated and people's First Amendment rights were not protected on private property. In a similar case in New Jersey, the Supreme court has upheld freedom of speech over private property rights.^{[citation needed]}

Decision

The District Court found that the mall was open to the general public and equivalent to a public business district. Therefore, it held that the Lloyd Corporation's "rule prohibiting the distribution of handbills within the Mall violates ... First Amendment rights" and issued a permanent injunction restraining the corporation from interfering with these rights.^[2] The Court of Appeals held that it was bound by the lower court's factual determination as to the character of the Center, and concluded that the Supreme Court precedents Marsh v. Alabama^[3] and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza^[4] compelled affirmance. The Lloyd Corporation appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on the question of whether the appeals court's decision violated property rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Lewis F. Powell concluded that the respondents could have distributed their handbills on "any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building." Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property.

Significance

Lloyd Corp v. Tanner led to the Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) case, where high school students petitioned against the U.N resolution "Zionism is Racism." The court sided with the First Amendment saying that it didn't violate the mall's rights under the U.S Constitution.^[5] However, the court reaffirmed its decision in the previous cases of Lloyd v. Tanner and National Labor Relations Board, leaving the decision up to the state's own constitution. With Richard Nixon's appointees to Supreme Court, it became more conservative than it had been in Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, where it upheld that shopping center sidewalks were equivalent to public sidewalks, allowing union works to strike and be protected under the First Amendment. The Berger court reversed many of the liberal decisions after Lloyd Corp v. Tanner. Justice Marshall said in his dissent after the case, "Only the wealthy may find effective communication possible unless we adhere to Marsh v. Alabama."^{[citation needed]} Both Justice Marshall and New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Marie L. Garibaldi noticed that the underlying truth of the matter could be undermining freedom. The New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision that the state's constitution protected those who protested the Persian Gulf War. Writing after the case, Chief Justice Robert Wilentz wrote, "[N]o use is more closely associated with the old downtown than leafleting."^[5]

See also

• Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Viet Nam
• Mora v. McNamara

References

• Text of Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) is available from: CourtListener  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio)