Document: 505 U.S. 830 112 S.Ct. 2709 120 L.Ed.2d 669 Walter LEE, Superintendent of Port Authority Police, Petitioner,v.INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al. No. 91-339. June 26, 1992. PER CURIAM. 1 For the reasons expressed in opinions Justice O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, see post, --- ----, 2711, ---- (O'CONNOR, J., concurring 91-155 judgment 91-339), S.Ct., at 2711 (KENNEDY, judgment), 2715 (SOUTER, 91-339 dissenting 91-155), Court Appeals holding that ban on distribution literature airport terminals is invalid under First Amendment 2 Affirmed. 3 Chief REHNQUIST, with whom WHITE, SCALIA THOMAS join, dissenting. 4 Leafletting presents risks congestion similar to those posed by solicitation. It presents, addition, some unique leafletting. And course, as solicitation, these must be evaluated against a backdrop substantial problem facing an eye cumulative impact will result if all groups are permitted terminal access. Viewed this light, I conclude ban, no less than solicitation reasonable. therefore dissent from Court's striking ban. 5 not trouble repeat detail has been stated 91-155, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 2701, describing burdens flowing travelers permitting terminals. Suffice it say leafletting quite The weary, harried, or hurried traveler may have desire need avoid delays generated having foisted upon him he does financial while busy passenger perhaps succeed fending off leafletter minimal disruption himself agreeing simply take proffered material, completely ameliorate dangers such Others choose accept material but also stop engage debate, obstructing who follow. Moreover, often drop floor once out leafletter's range, creating eyesore, safety hazard, additional clean-up work staff. See City Council Los Angeles Taxpayers Vincent, 466 789, 816-817, 104 2118, 2134-2135, 80 772 (1984) (aesthetic interests provide basis restricting speech); Sloane Supplemental Affidavit ¶ 10, App. 514 (noting increased maintenance problems distribution). 6 In differential permits prohibits giving impression least half what seeks, fact prove much more Pyrrhic victory. Under regime today sustained, obliged permit But monitoring activity order ensure only occurs, soliciting, little burdensome would required were permitted. At minimum, therefore, think remains open whether future date able reimpose complete developed evidence enforcement overly burdensome. Until now had reason means do this, since requirement announced. 7 foregoing reasons, opinion respectfully dissent.

Category: 2