Facts
- Marsha Kokinda and Kevin Pearl volunteered for a political advocacy group and set up a table on a sidewalk leading from a post-office parking lot to the post-office entrance.
- They distributed political literature, sold books and newspaper subscriptions, and solicited monetary contributions.
- The sidewalk was the only pedestrian route for postal customers between the parking lot and the building and was located entirely on Postal Service property.
- After complaints from postal employees and patrons, respondents refused to leave.
- Respondents were arrested and convicted for violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(h)(1), which prohibits “soliciting alms and contributions on postal premises.”
- A federal magistrate convicted respondents; the district court affirmed, concluding the sidewalk was not a public forum and the regulation was reasonable.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, treating the sidewalk as a public forum and invalidating the regulation as applied.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and reinstated the convictions.
Issues
- Whether the postal sidewalk—constructed and used solely to provide access from a parking lot to a post office and located entirely on postal property—is a public forum for First Amendment purposes.
- Whether applying 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(h)(1)’s categorical ban on solicitation on that sidewalk violates the First Amendment.
Decision
- The Court reversed and upheld the convictions by a 5–4 vote.
- A four-Justice plurality concluded the sidewalk was a nonpublic forum and the solicitation ban was reasonable and viewpoint neutral under that forum’s standard.
- Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, declining to decide forum status and concluding that, even assuming a public forum, the ban was a valid time, place, and manner restriction.
- The dissenting Justices would have treated the sidewalk as a traditional public forum and found a categorical solicitation ban unjustified and overly broad for political fundraising speech.
Legal Principles
- Government regulation of speech on its property is evaluated under forum analysis; if the property is not a traditional or designated public forum, restrictions are upheld if they are reasonable and not viewpoint based.
- Forum classification turns on the property’s purpose and actual use; physical similarity to municipal sidewalks does not control.
- In-person solicitation may be restricted more than leafleting or discussion because it can involve face-to-face pressure, require an immediate response, and impede pedestrian traffic and governmental operations.
- In a nonpublic forum, the government need not choose the least restrictive alternative; it must act reasonably and without viewpoint discrimination.
- A regulation that targets solicitation as a mode of expression, while leaving open other expressive activities (e.g., leafleting and discussion), can satisfy constitutional requirements in this setting.
Conclusion
The Court held that enforcing the Postal Service’s prohibition on in-person solicitation on an access sidewalk located on postal property is consistent with the First Amendment, because the restriction was sustained as reasonable and viewpoint neutral under nonpublic-forum principles (and, in the concurring view, as a valid time, place, and manner limit even if the sidewalk were treated as a public forum).