## Facts

- Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. owned a shopping center near Altoona, Pennsylvania, with a large parking area and stores including Weis Markets and Sears.
- The center was physically separated from public roads except for several vehicular entrances and was generally open and accessible to the public for shopping.
- Weis Markets operated a supermarket at the center and employed nonunion workers.
- Members of Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 peacefully picketed Weis to protest its nonunion status.
- The picketing occurred almost entirely on Weis’s covered porch/parcel pickup zone (used like a sidewalk/loading area) and the adjacent portion of the parking lot; congestion was sporadic and infrequent.
- The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas issued an injunction barring picketing and trespassing on the Weis premises and throughout the shopping center, effectively prohibiting picketing anywhere on the property.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed solely on the ground that the union’s activity was trespass on private property.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the injunction violated the union’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may use trespass law to enjoin peaceful labor picketing at a privately owned shopping center that is generally open to the public.
2. Whether First and Fourteenth Amendment protections extend to expressive activity in areas of such a center when the message is directly related to the operations of a business located there.
3. Whether a blanket injunction excluding picketing from the entire center is permissible, or whether only reasonable time, place, and manner limits may be imposed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded (6–3, Marshall, J.).
- The Court held that peaceful picketing in areas of a shopping center open to the public may not be wholly excluded through state trespass law when the center functions like a community business district and the picketing is related to a tenant’s operations.
- The Court emphasized that the picketing’s location (parcel pickup zone and adjacent parking area) and purpose (labor protest directed at Weis) were consistent with the center’s use and did not justify total exclusion.
- The Court recognized that reasonable regulation to prevent interference with normal use of the property remains permissible, but concluded the injunction was overbroad.

## Legal Principles

- Peaceful picketing carried on in a location open generally to the public is protected by the First Amendment absent disqualifying factors related to purpose or manner.
- When private property is held open to the public and functions as the equivalent of a downtown business district, the state may not apply trespass law to wholly exclude speech that is generally consistent with the property’s public commercial use.
- Expressive activity at a shopping center receives stronger constitutional protection when it is directly connected to the operations of businesses located on the premises.
- The state and property owner may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to prevent obstruction or interference, but may not impose a blanket ban solely because the property is privately owned.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a shopping center open to the public could not invoke state trespass law to impose a total ban on peaceful labor picketing aimed at a tenant’s practices, though tailored limits on the manner of expression could be allowed to protect ordinary use of the premises.


Amalgamated Food Emps. Union Loc. 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308 (1968)