## Facts

- Independent publishers sold and distributed alternative baseball programs and scorecards outside Coors Field during home games.
- Coors Field and surrounding sidewalks/walkways were owned by a public stadium district and leased to the Colorado Rockies.
- The Rockies had an exclusive concessions agreement granting a concessionaire exclusive rights to sell concessions on the leased premises, inside and outside the stadium.
- Relying on that exclusivity, the Rockies prohibited other vendors from selling or distributing materials in certain exterior areas and vendors were ticketed for trespass when they tried.
- The disputed exterior areas were the North Walkway, the Wynkoop Walkway, and a walkway between Gates D and E.
- For purposes of the litigation, the Rockies accepted that their regulation of expressive activity on the leased public property constituted state action.
- The publishers claimed the walkways functioned like public sidewalks integrated into the downtown street grid and therefore were public fora for First Amendment purposes.
- The Rockies asserted the walkways were primarily ingress/egress zones and argued the ban was justified by crowd control and safety, with alternative nearby locations available.

## Issues

1. Whether the exterior sidewalks and walkways around Coors Field leased to the Rockies are public forum property for First Amendment purposes.
2. If they are public fora, whether a blanket prohibition on nonconcessionaire sale and distribution of materials in those areas is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s injunction against enforcing the restrictions in the disputed areas.
- The court held the disputed exterior walkways were public forum property for free-speech purposes.
- The court held the Rockies’ blanket ban was not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction because it was not narrowly tailored and did not leave open adequate alternative channels.

## Legal Principles

- When publicly owned property is leased to a private entity that controls expressive activity on the premises, the lessee’s regulation may be treated as government action for First Amendment analysis.
- In a public forum, the government (or its lessee) may impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that (1) serve a significant governmental interest, (2) are narrowly tailored, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
- Crowd control, pedestrian safety, and orderly movement are significant governmental interests, but they do not justify restrictions that burden substantially more speech than necessary.
- A total ban on distributing or selling expressive materials in public-forum walkways is unconstitutional when narrower measures could address congestion and when suggested alternatives are not functionally adequate substitutes for reaching the intended audience.

## Conclusion

The court treated the Rockies as a state actor regulating speech on leased public property, classified the exterior walkways as public fora, and invalidated the team’s blanket prohibition on nonconcessionaire program sales and distribution because it failed public-forum time, place, and manner requirements.


Lewis v. Colo. Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., 941 P.2d 266 (Colo. 1997)