Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
| Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 18, 1980 Decided June 9, 1980 |
|
| Full case name | Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins |
| Citations | 447 U.S. 74 (more)
100 S.Ct. 2035; 64 L.Ed.2d 741
|
| Prior history | Writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California |
| Holding | |
| A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Stevens (in full); White, Powell (in part); Blackmun (in part) |
| Concurrence | Marshall |
| Concurrence | Powell, joined by White |
| Concurrence | White |
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).
In American constitutional law, this case is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:
This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. The Pruneyard case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center's argument that California's broader free speech right amounted to a "taking" of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.
...
Wikipedia