Facts
- The Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles adopted a resolution stating that the “Central Terminal Area” at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) was not open for “First Amendment activities” by any person or entity.
- Alan Snyder, a minister associated with Jews for Jesus, Inc., distributed free religious literature in LAX’s Central Terminal Area.
- An airport officer ordered Snyder to stop distributing literature based on the resolution; Snyder complied.
- Snyder and Jews for Jesus, Inc. sued, alleging the resolution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court held the terminal area was a traditional public forum and found the resolution facially unconstitutional; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
- Whether a resolution prohibiting all “First Amendment activities” in LAX’s Central Terminal Area violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face.
- Whether the constitutionality of such a sweeping ban depends on whether the terminal is classified as a public forum or a nonpublic forum.
- Whether the resolution could be saved by a narrowing construction limiting it to non-airport-related expression.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held the resolution facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine.
- The Court found the resolution reached essentially all expressive conduct, purporting to create a “First Amendment Free Zone” in the airport terminal.
- The Court declined to decide whether the airport terminal was a public forum or nonpublic forum because the ban was invalid under either classification.
- The Court rejected a limiting interpretation that would require officials to decide what expression was “airport related,” both because it conflicted with the resolution’s text and because it posed serious constitutional concerns.
- Justice White, joined by the Chief Justice, concurred, agreeing the ban was unconstitutional but stating the Court should have addressed forum status to avoid misreadings.
Legal Principles
- A law may be invalidated on its face for substantial overbreadth when it prohibits a significant amount of protected expression relative to any legitimate sweep.
- A categorical prohibition on all protected expression in a public facility is unconstitutional; no governmental interest justifies an absolute ban that encompasses everyday nondisruptive expression.
- Forum classification does not save a regulation that bans the “universe of expressive activity”; even in a nonpublic forum, restrictions must be reasonable and cannot suppress essentially all speech.
- Courts will not rewrite or adopt a narrowing construction inconsistent with a law’s plain language, particularly where the proposed reading would vest officials with broad, discretionary power over what speech is permitted.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated LAX’s resolution banning all “First Amendment activities” as substantially overbroad on its face, holding that the government may not impose an absolute ban on protected expression in an airport terminal, regardless of whether the terminal is treated as a public or nonpublic forum.