## Facts

- The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned and operated major airport terminals and regulated expressive activity in those terminals.
- In 1988, it adopted rules barring “repetitive solicitation of money or distribution of literature” inside terminals, while allowing those activities on sidewalks outside.
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON) and its members sought to distribute religious literature inside the terminals.
- The federal district court treated terminals as public fora and enjoined enforcement of both the solicitation and literature-distribution bans.
- The Second Circuit held terminals were not public fora, upheld the solicitation ban as reasonable, but invalidated the literature-distribution ban as unreasonable.
- The Port Authority (through the Superintendent of Port Authority Police, Walter Lee) sought Supreme Court review of the ruling striking down the literature-distribution ban.

## Issues

1. Whether a public authority may, consistent with the First Amendment, impose a total ban on distributing literature inside airport terminals.
2. Whether such a ban is reasonable in light of the purposes and operation of airport terminals, assuming the terminals are a nonpublic forum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the ban on literature distribution inside airport terminals.
- In a per curiam disposition, the Court relied on the reasoning expressed in separate opinions addressing the same regulation in the companion solicitation case.
- The controlling rationale treated a categorical prohibition on leafletting as unjustified given the asserted interests in traffic flow, passenger convenience, and security.

## Legal Principles

- Even in a nonpublic forum, the government’s restrictions on speech must be reasonable in light of the forum’s purposes and may not operate as an unjustified suppression of expression.
- Face-to-face solicitation may present distinct concerns (e.g., congestion, fraud, and duress) that can support broader restrictions than those applicable to leafletting.
- Peaceful distribution of literature is generally less intrusive than solicitation and may not be subject to a blanket prohibition when narrower measures could address operational concerns.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a public airport’s categorical ban on distributing literature within terminal buildings violates the First Amendment because, even under a nonpublic-forum framework, the prohibition was not a reasonable way to further the airport’s operational and security interests.


Lee v. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 505 U.S. 830 (1992)