Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/453/114/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:01:07
Document Index: 40607810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1725', '§ 1252', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1708', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 8', '§ 401', '§ 401', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725', '§ 1725']

USPS V. COUNCIL OF GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSNS., 453 U. S. 114 - Volume 453 - 1981 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 453 > USPS V. COUNCIL OF GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSNS., 453 U. S. 114 (1981) > Full Text
We noted probable jurisdiction to decide whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Page 453 U. S. 116
New York correctly determined that 18 U.S.C. § 1725, which prohibits the deposit of unstamped "mailable matter" in a letterbox approved by the United States Postal Service, unconstitutionally abridges the First Amendment rights of certain civic associations in Westchester County, N.Y. 449 U.S. 1076 (1981). Jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28 U.S.C.§ 1252.
In February, 1977, appellees filed this suit in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief from the Postal Service's threatened enforcement of § 1725. Appellees contended that the enforcement of § 1725 would inhibit their
Page 453 U. S. 117
In the proceedings on remand, the Postal Service offered three general justifications for § 1725: (1) that § 1725 protects mail revenues; (2) that it facilitates the efficient and secure delivery of the mails; and (3) that it promotes the privacy of mail patrons. More specifically, the Postal Service argued that elimination of § 1725 could cause the overcrowding of mailboxes due to the deposit of civic association notices. Such overcrowding would, in turn, constitute an impediment to the delivery of the mails. Testimony was offered that § 1725 aided the investigation of mail theft by restricting access to letterboxes, thereby enabling postal investigators to assume that anyone other than a postal carrier or a householder who opens a mailbox may be engaged in the violation of the law. On this point, a postal inspector testified that 10 of the arrests made under the external mail theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1708, resulted from surveillance-type operations which benefit from enforcement of § 1725. Testimony was also introduced that § 1725 has been
Page 453 U. S. 118
particularly helpful in the investigation of thefts of government benefit checks from letterboxes. [Footnote 1]
Page 453 U. S. 119
The District Court based its decision on several findings. The court initially concluded that, because civic associations generally have small cash reserves and cannot afford the applicable postage rates, mailing of the appellees' message would be financially burdensome. Similarly, because of the relatively slow pace of the mail, use of the mails at certain times would impede the appellees' ability to communicate quickly with their constituents. Given the widespread awareness
Page 453 U. S. 120
The present case is a good example of Justice Holmes' aphorism that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic."
Page 453 U. S. 121
New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 256 U. S. 349 (1921). For only by review of the history of the postal system and its present statutory and regulatory scheme can the constitutional challenge to 1725 be placed in its proper context.
Given the importance of the post to our early Nation, it is not surprising that, when the United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, Art. I, § 8, provided Congress the power "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" for executing this task. The Post Office played a vital yet largely unappreciated role in the development of our new Nation. Stagecoach trails which were improved by the Government to become post roads quickly became arteries of commerce. Mail contracts were of great assistance to the early development of new means of transportation such as canals, railroads, and eventually airlines. Kappel Commission, Toward
Page 453 U. S. 122
Not surprisingly, Congress has established a detailed statutory and regulatory scheme to govern this country's vast postal system. See 39 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. and the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which has been incorporated by
Page 453 U. S. 123
reference in the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR pt. 3 (1980). Under 39 U.S.C. 403(a), the Postal Service is directed to "plan, develop, promote and provide adequate and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees." Section 403(b)(1) similarly directs the Postal Service "to maintain an efficient system of collection, sorting. and delivery of the mail nationwide," and under 39 U.S.C. § 401, the Postal Service is broadly empowered to adopt rules and regulations designed to accomplish the above directives.
It is not without irony that this elaborate system of regulation, coupled with the historic dependence of the Nation on the Postal Service, has been the causal factor which led to this litigation. For it is because of the very fact that virtually every householder wishes to have a mailing address and a receptacle in which mail sent to that address will be deposited by the Postal Service that the letterbox or other mail receptacle is attractive to those who wish to convey messages within a locality, but do not wish to purchase the stamp or pay such other fee as would permit them to be transmitted
Page 453 U. S. 124
by the Postal Service. To the extent that the "alternative means" eschewed by the appellees and found to be inadequate alternatives by the District Court are in fact so, it is in no small part attributable to the fact that the typical mail patron first looks for written communications from the "outside world" not under his doormat, or inside the screen of his front door, but in his letterbox. Notwithstanding the increasing frequency of complaints about the rising cost of using the Postal Service, and the uncertainty of the time which passes between mailing and delivery, written communication making use of the Postal Service is so much a fact of our daily lives that the mail patron watching for the mailtruck, or the jobholder returning from work looking in his letterbox before he enters his house, are commonplaces of our society. Indeed, according to the appellees, the receptacles for mailable matter are so superior to alternative efforts to communicate printed matter that all other alternatives for deposit of such matter are inadequate substitutes for postal letterboxes.
Postal Service regulations, however, provide that letterboxes and other receptacles designated for the delivery of mail "shall be used exclusively for matter which bears postage." DMM 151.2. [Footnote 3] Section 1725 merely reinforces this
Page 453 U. S. 125
regulation by prohibiting, under pain of criminal sanctions, the deposit into a letterbox of any mailable matter on which postage has not been paid. The specific prohibition contained in § 1725 is also repeated in the Postal Service regulations at DMM 146.21.
Nothing in any of the legislation or regulations recited above requires any person to become a postal customer. Anyone is free to live in any part of the country without having letters or packages delivered or received by the Postal Service by simply failing to provide the receptacle for those letters and packages which the statutes and regulations require. Indeed, the provision for "General Delivery" in most post offices enables a person to take advantage of the facilities
Page 453 U. S. 126
However broad the postal power conferred by Art. I may be, it may not, of course, be exercised by Congress in a manner that abridges the freedom of speech or of the press protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In this case, we are confronted with the appellees' assertion that the First Amendment guarantees them the right to deposit, without payment of postage, their notices, circulars, and flyers in
Page 453 U. S. 127
letterboxes which have been accepted as authorized depositories of mail by the Postal Service. [Footnote 4]
In addressing appellees' claim, we note that we are not here confronted with a regulation which in any way prohibits individuals from going door-to-door to distribute their message or which vests unbridled discretion in a governmental official to decide whether or not to permit the distribution to occur. We are likewise not confronted with a regulation which in any way restricts the appellees' right to use the mails. The appellees may mail their civic notices in the ordinary fashion. and the Postal Service will treat such notices identically with all other mail without regard to content. There is no claim that the Postal Service treats civic notices, because of their content, any differently from the way it treats any of the other mail it processes. Admittedly, if appellees do choose to mail their notices, they will be required to pay postage in a manner identical to other Postal Service patrons, but appellees do not challenge the imposition of a fee for the services provided by the Postal Service. [Footnote 5]
Page 453 U. S. 128
Appellees' claim is undermined by the fact that a letterbox, once designated an "authorized depository," does not at the same time undergo a transformation into a "public forum" of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers. There is neither historical nor constitutional support for the characterization of a letterbox as a public forum. Letterboxes are an essential part of the nationwide system for the delivery and receipt of
Page 453 U. S. 129
mail, and, since 1934, access to them has been unlawful except under the terms and conditions specified by Congress and the Postal Service. As such, it is difficult to accept appellees' assertion that, because it may be somewhat more efficient to place their messages in letterboxes, there is a First Amendment right to do so. The underlying rationale of appellees' argument would seem to foreclose Congress or the Postal Service from requiring in the future that all letterboxes contain locks with keys being available only to the homeowner and the mail carrier. Such letterboxes are presently found in many apartment buildings, and we do not think their presence offends the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Letterboxes which lock, however, have the same effect on civic associations that wish access to them as does the enforcement of § 1725. Such letterboxes also accomplish the same purpose -- that is, they protect mail revenues while at the same time facilitating the secure and efficient delivery of the mails. We do not think the First Amendment prohibits Congress from choosing to accomplish these purposes through legislation, as opposed to lock and key.
"'[t]he State, no less than a private owner of
Page 453 U. S. 130
property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.'"
424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 836. [Footnote 6] This Court has not hesitated in the past to hold invalid
Page 453 U. S. 131
laws which it concluded granted too much discretion to public officials as to who might and who might not solicit individual homeowners, or which too broadly limited the access of persons to traditional First Amendment forums such as the public streets and parks. See, e.g., Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U. S. 620 (1980); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); and Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). But it is a giant leap from the traditional "soapbox" to the letterbox designated as an authorized depository of the United States mails, and we do not believe the First Amendment requires us to make that leap. [Footnote 7]
Page 453 U. S. 132
It is thus unnecessary for us to examine § 1725 in the context of a "time, place, and manner" restriction on the use of the traditional "public forums" referred to above. This Court has long recognized the validity of reasonable time, place, and manner regulations on such a forum, so long as the regulation is content-neutral, serves a significant governmental interest, and leaves open adequate alternative channels for communication. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U. S. 530, 447 U. S. 535-536 (1980); Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 431 U. S. 93 (1977); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 425 U. S. 771 (1976); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 (1972); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). But since a letterbox is not traditionally such a "public forum," the elaborate analysis engaged in by the District Court was, we think, unnecessary. To be sure, if a governmental regulation is based on the content of the speech or the message, that action must be scrutinized more carefully to ensure that communication has not been prohibited "merely because public officials disapprove the speaker's view.'" Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, supra, at 446 U. S. 536, quoting Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 340 U. S. 282 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result). But in this case, there simply is no question that § 1725 does not regulate speech on the basis of content. While the analytical line between a regulation of the "time, place, and manner" in which First Amendment rights may be exercised in a traditional public forum, and the question of whether a particular piece of personal or real property owned or controlled by the government is in fact a "public forum" may blur at the edges, we think the line is nonetheless a workable one. We likewise think that Congress may, in exercising its authority to develop and operate a national postal system, properly legislate with the generality of cases in mind, and
Page 453 U. S. 133
should not be put to the test of defending in one township after another the constitutionality of a statute under the traditional "time place, and manner" analysis. This Court has previously acknowledged that the
From the time of the issuance of the first postage stamp in this country at Brattleboro, Vt., in the fifth decade of the last century, through the days of the governmentally subsidized "Pony Express" immediately before the Civil War, and through the less admirable era of the Star Route Mail Frauds in the latter part of that century, Congress has actively exercised the authority conferred upon it by the Constitution "to establish Post Offices and Post Roads" and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for executing this task. While Congress, no more than a suburban township, may not by its own ipse dixit destroy the "public forum" status of streets and parks which have historically been public forums, we think that, for the reasons stated, a letterbox may not properly be analogized to streets and parks.
Page 453 U. S. 134
It is enough for our purposes that neither the enactment nor the enforcement of § 1725 was geared in any way to the content of the message sought to be placed in the letterbox. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
18 U.S.C. § 1725. Unquestionably, § 1725 burdens in some measure the First Amendment rights of appellees who seek to "communicate ideas, positions on local issues, and civic information to their constituents" through delivery of circulars door-to-door. 490 F.Supp. 157, 319 U. S. 162 (1980). See Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 146-147 (1943). The statute requires appellees either to pay postage to obtain access to the postal system, which they assert they are unable to do, or to deposit
Page 453 U. S. 135
their materials in places other than the letterbox, which they contend is less effective than deposit in the letterbox.
Third, there are "ample alternative channels for communication." Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. at 447 U. S. 535. Appellees may, for example, place their circulars under doors or attach them to doorknobs. Simply because recipients may find 82% of materials left in the letterbox, but only 70-75% of materials otherwise left at the residence, is not a sufficient reason to conclude that alternative
Page 453 U. S. 136
means of delivery are not "ample." Ibid.; see ante at 453 U. S. 120, and n. 2.
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410, 400 U. S. 416 (1971), and Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 381 U. S. 305 (1965), quoting United States ex
Page 453 U. S. 137
rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 437 (1921) (Holmes, J. dissenting). [Footnote 2/1] Our cases have recognized generally that public properties are appropriate fora for exercise of First Amendment rights. See e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503, 393 U. S. 512 (1969); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131, 383 U. S. 139-140, 383 U. S. 142 (1966) (plurality opinion); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 379 U. S. 543 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963). [Footnote 2/2] While First Amendment rights exercised on public property may be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, that is very different from saying that government-controlled property, such as a letterbox, does not constitute a public forum. Only where the exercise of First Amendment rights is incompatible with the normal activity occurring on public property have we held that the property is not a public forum. See Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828 (1976); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U. S. 119 (1977); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966). Thus, in answering
Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, at 408 U. S. 116, I believe that the mere deposit of mailable matter without postage is not "basically incompatible" with the "normal activity" for which a letterbox is used, i.e., deposit of mailable matter with proper postage or mail delivery by the Postal Service. On the contrary, the mails and the letterbox are specifically used for the communication of information and ideas, and thus surely constitute a public
Page 453 U. S. 138
forum appropriate for the exercise of First Amendment rights subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions such as those embodied in § 1725 or in the requirement that postage be affixed to mailable matter to obtain access to the postal system.
Ante at 453 U. S. 121 (emphasis added). The Court further points out that "[t]he Post Office played a vital . . . role in the development of our new Nation," ibid. (emphasis added), and currently processes "106.3 billion pieces of mail each year," ante at 453 U. S. 122. The variety of communication transported by the Postal Service ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous, and includes newspapers, magazines, books, films and almost any type and form of expression imaginable. See Kappel Commission, Toward Postal Excellence,
Page 453 U. S. 139
Report of the President's Commission on Postal Organization 478 (Comm.Print 1968). Given "the historic dependence of the Nation on the Postal Service," ante at 453 U. S. 123, it is extraordinary that the Court reaches the conclusion that the letterbox, a critical link in the mail system, is not a public forum.
Not only does the Court misapprehend the historic role that the mails have played in national communication, but it relies on inapposite cases to reach its result. Greer v. Spock, [Footnote 2/4] Adderley v. Florida, [Footnote 2/5] and Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, [Footnote 2/6] all rested on the inherent incompatibility between the
Page 453 U. S. 140
rights sought to be exercised and the physical location in which the exercise was to occur. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights [Footnote 2/7] rested in large measure on the captive audience doctrine, 418 U.S. at 418 U. S. 304, and in part on the transportation purpose of the city bus system, id. at 418 U. S. 303. These cases, therefore, provide no support for the Court's conclusion that a letterbox is not a public forum.
Ante at 453 U. S. 126. Even where property does not constitute a public forum, government regulation that is content-neutral must still be reasonable as to time. place, and manner. See, e.g., Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 427 U. S. 63, n. 18 (1976). Cf. Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 92-93; Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 425 U. S. 771 (1976). The
Page 453 U. S. 141
restriction in § 1725 could have such an effect on First Amendment rights -- and does for JUSTICE MARSHALL -- that it should be struck down. The Court, therefore cannot avoid analyzing § 1725 as a time, place, and manner restriction. [Footnote 2/8]
No different answer is required in this case because appellees do not insist on free home delivery and desire to use only a part of the system, the mailbox. The Government's interest in defraying its operating expenses remains, and it is clear
Page 453 U. S. 142
that stuffing the mailbox with unstamped materials is a burden on the system.
The challenged statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1725, prohibits anyone from knowingly placing unstamped "mailable matter" in any box approved by the United States Postal Service for receiving or depositing material carried by the Postal Service. Violators may be punished with fines of up to $300 for each offense. In this case, appellee civic associations claimed, and
Page 453 U. S. 143
the District Court agreed, that this criminal statute unreasonably restricts their First Amendment right of free expression.
That appellee civic associations enjoy the First Amendment right of free expression cannot be doubted; both their purposes and their practices fall within the core of the First Amendment's protections. We have long recognized the constitutional rights of groups which seek, as appellees do, to "communicate ideas, positions on local issues, and civic information to their constituents" [Footnote 3/1] through written handouts,
Page 453 U. S. 144
and thereby to promote the free discussion of governmental affairs so central to our democracy. See e.g., Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 146-147 (1943); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938). By traveling door to door to hand-deliver their messages to the homes of community members, appellees employ the method of written expression most accessible to those who are not powerful, established, or well financed. "Door to door distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people." Martin v. City of Struthers, supra, at 319 U. S. 146. See Schneider v. State, supra, at 308 U. S. 164. Moreover, "[f]reedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 319 U. S. 111 (1943). And such freedoms depend on liberty to circulate; "indeed, without circulation, the publication would be of little value.'" Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, 362 U. S. 64 (1960), quoting Lovell v. Griffin, supra, at 303 U. S. 452.
Countervailing public interests, such as protection against fraud and preservation of privacy, may warrant some limitation on door-to-door solicitation and canvassing. But we have consistently held that any such restrictions, to be valid, must be narrowly drawn "in such a manner as not to intrude upon the rights of free speech.'" Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610, 425 U. S. 616 (1976), quoting Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 323 U. S. 540-541 (1945). Consequently, I cannot agree with the Court's conclusion, ante at 453 U. S. 132-133, that we need not ask whether the ban against placing such messages in letterboxes is a restriction on appellees' free expression rights. Once appellees are at the doorstep, only § 1725 restricts them from placing their circulars in the box provided by the resident. The District Court determined after an evidentiary hearing that only by placing their circulars in the letterboxes may appellees be certain that their messages will be secure from wind, rain, or snow, and at the same time will alert the attention of the residents without
Page 453 U. S. 145
notifying would-be burglars that no one has returned home to remove items from doorways or stoops. 490 F.Supp. 157, 160-163 (1980). The court concluded that the costs and delays of mail service put the mails out of appellees' reach, and that other alternatives, such as placing their circulars in doorways, are "much less satisfactory." Id. at 160. [Footnote 3/2] We have in the past similarly recognized the burden placed on First Amendment rights when the alternative channels of communication involve more cost, less autonomy, and reduced likelihood of reaching the intended audience. Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85, 431 U. S. 93 (1977).
I see no ground to disturb these factual determinations of the trier of fact. And, given these facts, the Postal Service bears a heavy burden to show that its interests are legitimate and substantially served by the restriction of appellees' freedom of expression. See, e.g., Hynes v. Mayor and Council of the Borough of Oradell, supra, at 425 U. S. 617-618; Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U. S. 36, 366 U. S. 49-51 (1961); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501, 326 U. S. 509 (1946). Although the majority does not rule that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous, as would be required to set them aside, the Court finds persuasive the interests asserted by the Postal Service in defense of the statute. Those interests -- "protect[ing] mail revenues while at the same time facilitating the secure and efficient delivery of the mails," ante at 453 U. S. 129 -- are indeed both legitimate and important. But mere assertion of an important, legitimate interest does not satisfy the requirement that the challenged restriction specifically and precisely serve that end. See Hynes v. Mayor and Council of the Borough of
Page 453 U. S. 146
Oradell, supra. See also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 379 U. S. 557-558 (1965) (restriction must be applied uniformly and nondiscriminatorily) .
490 F.Supp. at 163. [Footnote 3/3] In light of this failure of proof, I cannot join the Court's conclusion that the Federal Government may thus curtail appellees' ability to inform community residents about local civic matters. That decision, I fear, threatens a departure from this Court's belief that free expression, as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 302 U. S. 327 (1937), must not yield unnecessarily before such governmental interests as economy or efficiency. Certainly, free expression should not have to yield here, where the intruding statute has seldom been enforced. [Footnote 3/4] As the exceptions created
Page 453 U. S. 147
by the Postal Service itself demonstrate, [Footnote 3/5] the statute's asserted purposes easily could be advanced by less intrusive alternatives, such as a nondiscriminatory permit requirement for depositing unstamped circulars in letterboxes. [Footnote 3/6] Therefore, I would find 18 U.S.C. § 1725 constitutionally defective.
Even apart from the result in this case, I must differ with the Court's use of the public forum concept to avoid application of the First Amendment. Rather than a threshold barrier that must be surmounted before reaching the terrain of the First Amendment, the concept of a public forum has more properly been used to open varied governmental locations to equal public access for free expression, subject to the constraints on time, place, or manner necessary to preserve the governmental function. E.g., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 115-117 (area around public school); Chicago Area Military Project v. Chicago, 508 F.2d 921 (CA7) (city airport), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 992 (1975); Albany Welfare Rights Organization v. Wyman, 493 F.2d 1319 (CA2) (welfare office waiting room), cert. denied sub nom. Lavine v. Albany Welfare Rights Organization, 419 U.S. 838 (1974);
Page 453 U. S. 148
Wolin v. Port of New York Authority, 392 F.2d 83 (CA2) (port authority), cert. denied 393 U.S. 940 (1968); Reilly v. Noel, 384 F.Supp. 741 (RI 1974) (rotunda of courthouse). See generally Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298, 418 U. S. 303 (1974); Stone, Fora Americana: Speech in Public Places, S.Ct.Rev. 233, 251-252 (1974). These decisions apply the public forum concept to secure the First Amendment's commitment to expression unfettered by governmental designation of its proper scope, audience, or occasion.
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301, 381 U. S. 305 (1965), quoting United States ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 437 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Given its pervasive and traditional use as purveyor of written communication, the Postal Service, I believe, may properly be viewed as a public forum. The Court relies on easily distinguishable cases in reaching the contrary conclusion. For the Postal Service's very purpose is to facilitate communication, which surely differentiates it from the military bases, jails, and mass transportation discussed in cases relied on by the Court, ante at 453 U. S. 129-130. [Footnote 3/7] Cf. 393 U. S. Des Moines Independent School
Page 453 U. S. 149
Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 393 U. S. 512 (1969). Drawing from the exceptional cases, where speech has been limited for special reasons, does not strike me as commendable analysis.
The inquiry in our public forum cases has instead asked whether "the manner of expression is basically incompatible
Page 453 U. S. 150
with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. at 408 U. S. 116. Compare Grayned v. City of Rockford (restriction on speech permissible near school while in session) with Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School Dist., supra, (symbolic speech protected even during school hours); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968) (restriction on picketing permitted where limited to entrance of courthouse), with Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131 (1966) (silent protest in library protected); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966) (protest near jailyard inconsistent with jail purposes), with Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963) (protest permitted on state capitol grounds). Assuming for the moment that the letterboxes, as "authorized depositories," are under governmental control, and thus part of the governmental enterprise, their purpose is hardly incompatible with appellees' use. For the letterboxes are intended to receive written communication directed to the residents, and to protect such materials from the weather or the intruding eyes of would-be burglars.
Reluctance to treat the letterboxes as public forums might stem not from the Postal Service's approval of their form, but instead from the fact that their ownership and use remain in the hands of private individuals. [Footnote 3/8] Even that hesitation, I should think, would be misguided, for those owners necessarily retain the right to receive information as a counterpart of the right of speakers to speak. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 408 U. S. 762-765 (1972); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 395 U. S. 389-390 (1969); Lamont v. Postmaster General, supra, at 381 U. S. 307; Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. at 319 U. S. 143. Cf. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396, 416 U. S. 408 (1974) (communication by letter depends on receipt by addressee). On that basis alone, I would doubt the validity of 18 U.S.C. § 1725, for it deprives residents of the information
Page 453 U. S. 151
which civic groups or individuals may wish to deliver to these private receptacles. [Footnote 3/9]
I remain troubled by the Court's effort to transform the letterboxes entirely into components of the governmental enterprise despite their private ownership. Under the Court's reasoning, the Postal Service could decline to deliver mail unless the recipients agreed to open their doors to the letter carrier -- and then the doorway, or even the room inside could fall within Postal Service control. [Footnote 3/10] Instead of starting with the scope of governmental control, I would adhere to our usual analysis which looks to whether the exercise of a First Amendment right is burdened by the challenged governmental action, and then upholds that action only where it is necessary to advance a substantial and legitimate governmental interest. In my view, the statute criminalizing the placement of hand-delivered civic association notices in letterboxes fail this test. The brute force of the criminal sanction and other powers of the Government, I believe, may be
Page 453 U. S. 152
deployed to restrict free expression only with greater justification. I dissent.
Indeed, the record in this litigation indicates that appellees circulated less information when inhibited from using the letterboxes. Plaintiffs' Answer to Written Interrogatories, Record, Doc. No. 23, � 8, pp. 7. The practical effect of applying the statute in residential communities would preclude Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, charities, neighbors, and others from leaving invitations or notes in the place residents most likely check for messages.
Page 453 U. S. 153
To the extent that the statute aids in the prevention of theft, that incidental benefit was not a factor that motivated Congress. [Footnote 4/2] The District Court noted that the testimony indicated that § 1725 "was marginally useful" in the enforcement of the statutes relating to theft of mail. 490 F.Supp. 157, 161-162 (1980). It concluded, however, that the Government had failed to introduce evidence sufficient to justify
Page 453 U. S. 154
the interference with First Amendment interests. [Footnote 4/3] The Court does not quarrel with any of the District Court's findings of fact, and I would not disturb the conclusion derived from those findings.
But as JUSTICE MARSHALL has noted, the problem is susceptible of a much less drastic solution. See ante at 453 U. S. 146, n. 3. There are probably many overstuffed mailboxes now -- and if this statute were repealed, there would be many more -- but the record indicates that the relatively empty boxes far outnumber the crowded ones. If the statute allowed the homeowner to decide whether or not to receive unstamped communications -- and to have his option plainly indicated on the exterior of the mailbox -- a simple requirement that overstuffed boxes be replaced with larger ones should provide the answer to most of the Government's concern. [Footnote 4/4]
Page 453 U. S. 155