Facts
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON) is a religious organization whose members perform sankirtan, including distributing literature and soliciting donations in public places.
- The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned and operated certain airport terminals.
- In 1988, the Port Authority adopted a regulation barring “the repetitive solicitation of money” and distribution of literature within airport terminals, while allowing such activity on sidewalks outside the terminals.
- ISKCON and a member sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the in-terminal solicitation ban violated the First Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ISKCON, treating the terminals as public fora and applying strict scrutiny.
- The Second Circuit held the terminals were not public fora and upheld the solicitation ban as reasonable; it separately treated the literature-distribution ban as unreasonable in related proceedings.
Issues
- Whether airport terminals operated by a public authority are public fora for First Amendment purposes.
- Whether a regulation prohibiting solicitation of money inside airport terminals violates the First Amendment.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held that airport terminals operated by a public authority are nonpublic fora.
- Applying nonpublic-forum review, the Court upheld the ban on in-terminal solicitation because it was reasonable in light of the terminal’s purposes and was viewpoint neutral.
- The Court affirmed the judgment upholding the solicitation ban.
Legal Principles
- Forum classification controls the level of scrutiny for speech restrictions on government property: traditional or designated public fora trigger strict scrutiny; nonpublic fora permit restrictions that are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
- Airport terminals are not traditional public fora and are not designated public fora absent an intentional opening for general expressive activity.
- When the government manages property as a proprietor, it may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits tied to the property’s intended function.
- In a nonpublic forum, restrictions may be upheld based on practical operational concerns, including maintaining pedestrian flow, reducing risks associated with face-to-face solicitation (such as duress or fraud), and limiting administrative burdens.
- Availability of alternative channels (such as solicitation on sidewalks outside terminals) supports the reasonableness of an interior solicitation restriction.
Conclusion
The Court sustained the Port Authority’s ban on solicitation inside airport terminals, holding that terminals are nonpublic fora and that a viewpoint-neutral solicitation prohibition is constitutional if reasonable in light of the airport’s operational purpose.