Case Name: AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 et al. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-05-20
Citations: 391 U.S. 308
Docket Number: No. 478
Parties: AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 et al. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 391
Pages: 308–340

Head Matter:
AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 et al. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., et al.
No. 478.
Argued March 14, 1968.
Decided May 20, 1968.
Bernard Dunau argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Lester Asher.
Robert Lewis argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Sidney Apfelbaum.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, and Norton J. Come for the National Labor Relations Board; by J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, and Thomas E. Harris for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; by Sí. G. Lipp-man and Tim Bomstein for the Retail Clerks International Association, and by Marvin M. Karpatkin and Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Fred H. Daugherty for the International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc., and by Charles J. Barnhill for the American Retail Federation.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether peaceful picketing of a business enterprise located within a shopping center can be enjoined on the ground that it constitutes an unconsented invasion of the property rights of the owners of the land on which the center is situated. We granted certiorari to consider petitioners' contentions that the decisions of the state courts enjoining their picketing as a trespass are violative of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 389 U. S. 911 (1967). We reverse.
Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. (Logan), one of the two respondents herein, owns a large, newly developed shopping center complex, known as the Logan Valley Mall, located near the City of Altoona, Pennsylvania. The shopping center is situated at the intersection of Plank Road, which is to the east of the center, and Good's Lane, which is to the south. Plank Road, also known as U. S. Route 220, is a heavily traveled highway along which traffic moves at a fairly high rate of speed. There are five entrance roads into the center, three from Plank Road and two from Good's Lane. Aside from these five entrances, the shopping center is totally separated from the adjoining roads by earthen berms. The berms are 15 feet wide along Good's Lane and 12 feet wide along Plank Road.
At the time of the events in this case, Logan Valley Mall was occupied by two businesses, Weis Markets, Inc. (Weis), the other respondent herein, and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears), although other enterprises were then expected and have since moved into the center. Weis operates a supermarket and Sears operates both a department store and an automobile service center. The Weis property consists of the enclosed supermarket building, an open but covered porch along the front of the building, and an approximately five-foot-wide parcel pickup zone that runs 30 to 40 feet along the porch. The porch functions as a sidewalk in front of the building and the pickup zone is used as a temporary parking place for the loading of purchases into customers' cars by Weis employees.
Between the Weis building and the highway berms are extensive macadam parking lots with parking spaces and driveways lined off thereon. These areas, to which Logan retains title, provide common parking facilities for all the businesses in the shopping center. The distance across the parking lots to the Weis store from the entrances on Good's Lane is approximately 350 feet and from the entrances on Plank Road approximately 400 to 500 feet. The entrance on Plank Road farthest from the Weis property is the main entrance to the shopping center as a whole and is regularly used by customers of Weis. The entrance on Plank Road nearest to Weis is almost exclusively used by patrons of the Sears automobile service station into which it leads directly.
On December 8, 1965, Weis opened for business, employing a wholly nonunion staff of employees. A few days after it opened for business, Weis posted a sign on the exterior of its building prohibiting trespassing or soliciting by anyone other than its employees on its porch or parking lot. On December 17, 1965, members of Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local 590, began picketing Weis. They carried signs stating that the Weis market was nonunion and that its employees were not "receiving union wages or other union benefits." The pickets did not include any employees of Weis, but rather were all employees of competitors of Weis. The picketing continued until December 27, during which time the number of pickets varied between four and 13 and averaged around six. The picketing was carried out almost entirely in the parcel pickup area and that portion of the parking lot immediately adjacent thereto. Although some congestion of the parcel pickup area occurred, such congestion was sporadic and infrequent. The picketing was peaceful at all times and unaccompanied by either threats or violence.
On December 27, Weis and Logan instituted an action in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, and that court immediately issued an ex parte order enjoining petitioners from, inter alia, "[picketing and trespassing upon . . . the [Weis] storeroom, porch and parcel pick-up area . . . [and] the [Logan] parking area and all entrances and exits leading to said parking area." The effect of this order was to require that all picketing be carried on along the berms beside the public roads outside the shopping center. Picketing continued along the berms and, in addition, handbills asking the public not to patronize Weis because it was nonunion were distributed, while petitioners contested the validity of the ex parte injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, which resulted in the establishment of the facts set forth above, the Court of Common Pleas continued indefinitely its original ex parte injunction without modification.
That court explicitly rejected petitioners' claim under the First Amendment that they were entitled to picket within the confines of the shopping center, and their contention that the suit was within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB. The trial judge held that the injunction was justified both in order to protect respondents' property rights and because the picketing was unlawfully aimed at coercing Weis to compel its employees to join a union. On appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with three Justices dissenting, affirmed the issuance of the injunction on the sole ground that petitioners' conduct constituted a trespass on respondents' property.
We start from the premise that peaceful picketing carried on in a location open generally to the public is, absent other factors involving the purpose or manner of the picketing, protected by the First Amendment. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940); AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941); Bakery Drivers Local 802 v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942); Teamsters Local 795 v. Newell, 356 U. S. 341 (1958). To be sure, this Court has noted that picketing involves elements of both speech and conduct, i. e., patrolling, and has indicated that because of this intermingling of protected and unprotected elements, picketing can be subjected to controls that would not be constitutionally permissible in the case of pure speech. See, e. g., Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460 (1950); International Bro. of Teamsters v. Vogt, Inc., 354 U. S. 284 (1957); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611. Nevertheless, no case decided by this Court can be found to support the proposition that the nonspeech aspects of peaceful picketing are so great as to render the provisions of the First Amendment inapplicable to it altogether.
The majority of the cases from this Court relied on by respondents, in support of their contention that picketing can be subjected to a blanket prohibition in some instances by the States, involved picketing that was found either to have been directed at an illegal end, e. g., Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490 (1949); Building Service Employees Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 U. S. 532 (1950); Plumbers Local 10 v. Graham, 345 U. S. 192 (1953), or to have been directed at coercing a decision by an employer which, although in itself legal, could validly be required by the State to be left to the employer's free choice, e. g., Carpenters Local 213 v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U. S. 722 (1942) (secondary boycott); Teamsters Local 809 v. Hanke, 339 U. S. 470 (1950) (self-employer union shop). Compare NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675 (1951), and International Bro. of Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 341 U. S. 694 (1951).
Those cases are not applicable here because they all turned on the purpose for which the picketing was carried on, not its location. In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court specifically disavowed reliance on the finding of unlawful purpose on which the trial court alternatively based its issuance of the injunction. It did emphasize that the pickets were not employees of Weis and were discouraging the public from patroniz ing the Weis market. However, those facts could in no way provide a constitutionally permissible independent basis for the decision because this Court has previously specifically held that picketing of a business enterprise cannot be prohibited on the sole ground that it is conducted by persons not employees whose purpose is to discourage patronage of the business. AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941). Compare Bakery Drivers Local 802 v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942). Rather, those factors merely supported the court's finding of a trespass by demonstrating that the picketing took place without the consent, and against the will, of respondents.
The case squarely presents, therefore, the question whether Pennsylvania's generally valid rules against trespass to private property can be applied in these circumstances to bar petitioners from the Weis and Logan premises. It is clear that if the shopping center premises were not privately owned but instead constituted the business area of a municipality, which they to a large extent resemble, petitioners could not be barred from exercising their First Amendment rights there on the sole ground that title to the property was in the municipality. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943). The essence of those opinions is that streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places are so historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights that access to them for the purpose of exercising such rights cannot constitutionally be denied broadly and absolutely.
The fact that Lovell, Schneider, and Jamison were concerned with handbilling rather than picketing is immaterial so far as the question is solely one of right of access for the purpose of expression of views. Handbilling, like picketing, involves conduct other than speech, namely, the physical presence of the person distributing leaflets on municipal property. If title to municipal property is, standing alone, an insuflicient basis for prohibiting all entry onto such property for the purpose of distributing printed matter, it is likewise an insufficient basis for prohibiting all entry for the purpose of carrying an informational placard. While the patrolling involved in picketing may in some cases constitute an interference with the use of public property greater than that produced by handbilling, it is clear that in other cases the converse may be true. Obviously, a few persons walking slowly back and forth holding placards can be less obstructive of, for example, a public sidewalk than numerous persons milling around handing out leaflets. That the manner in which handbilling, or picketing, is carried out may be regulated does not mean that either can be barred under all circumstances on publicly owned property simply by recourse to traditional concepts of property law concerning the incidents of ownership of real property.
This Court has also held, in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 (1946), that under some circumstances property that is privately owned may, at least for First Amendment purposes, be treated as though it were publicly held. In Marsh, the appellant, a Jehovah's Witness, had undertaken to distribute religious literature on a sidewalk in the business district of Chickasaw, Alabama. Chickasaw, a so-called company town, was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. "The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a 'business block' on which business places are situated. . . . [T]he residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block and upon arrival a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation." 326 U. S., at 502-603.
The corporation had posted notices in the stores stating that the premises were private property and that no solicitation of any kind without written permission would be permitted. Appellant- Marsh was told that she must have a permit- to distribute her literature and that a permit would not be granted to her. When she declared that the company rule could not be utilized to prevent her from exercising her constitutional rights under the First Amendment, she was ordered to leave Chickasaw. She refused to do so and was arrested for violating Alabama's criminal trespass statute. In reversing her conviction under the statute, this Court held that the fact that the property from which appellant was sought to be ejected for exercising her First Amendment rights was owned by a private corporation rather than the State was an insufficient basis to justify the infringement on appellant's right to free expression occasioned thereby. Likewise the fact that appellant Marsh was herself not a resident of the town was not considered material.
The similarities between the business block in Marsh and the shopping center in the present case are striking. The perimeter of Logan Valley Mall is a little less than 1.1 miles. Inside the mall were situated, at the time of trial, two substantial commercial enterprises with nu merous others soon to follow. Immediately adjacent to the mall are two roads, one of which is a heavily traveled state highway and from both of which lead entrances directly into the mall. Adjoining the buildings in the middle of the mall are sidewalks for the use of pedestrians going to and from their cars and from building to building. In the parking areas, roadways for the use of vehicular traffic entering and leaving the mall are clearly marked out. The general public has unrestricted .access to the mall property. The shopping center here is clearly the functional equivalent of the business district of Chickasaw involved in Marsh.
It is true that, unlike the corporation in Marsh, the respondents here do not own the surrounding residential property and do not provide municipal services therefor. Presumably, petitioners are free to canvass the neighborhood with their message about the nonunion status of Weis Market, just as they have been permitted by the state courts to picket on the berms outside the mall. Thus, unlike the situation in Marsh, there is no power on respondents' part to have petitioners totally denied access to the community for which the mall serves as a business district. This fact, however, is not determinative. In Marsh itself the precise issue presented was whether the appellant therein had the right, under the First Amendment, to pass out leaflets in the business district, since there was no showing made there that the corporate owner would have sought to prevent the distribution of leaflets in the residential areas of the town. While it is probable that the power to prevent trespass broadly claimed in Marsh would have encompassed such an incursion into the residential areas, the specific facts in the case involved access to property used for commercial purposes.
We see no reason why access to a business district 'in a company town for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights should be constitutionally required, while access for the same purpose to property functioning as a business district should be limited simply because the property surrounding the "business district" is not under the same ownership. Here the roadways provided for vehicular movement within the mall and the sidewalks leading from building to building are the functional equivalents of the streets and sidewalks of a normal municipal business district. The shopping center premises are open to the public to the same extent as the commercial center of a normal town. So far as can be determined, the main distinction in practice between use by the public of the Logan Valley Mall and of any other business district, were the decisions of the state courts to stand, would be that those members of the general public who sought to use the mall premises in a manner contrary to the wishes of the respondents could be prevented from so doing.
Such a power on the part of respondents would be, of course, part and parcel of the rights traditionally associated with ownership of private property. And it may well be that respondents' ownership of the property here in question gives them various rights, under the laws of Pennsylvania, to limit the use of that property by members of the public in a manner that would not be permissible were the property owned by a municipality. All we decide here is that because the shopping center serves as the community business block "and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through," Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S., at 508, the State may not delegate the power, through the use of its trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights on the premises in a manner and for a purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put.
We do not hold that respondents, and at their behest the State, are without power to make reasonable regulations governing the exercise of First Amendment rights on their property. Certainly their rights to make such regulations are at the very least co-extensive with the powers possessed by States and municipalities, and recognized in many opinions of this Court, to control the use of public property. Thus where property is not ordinarily open to the public, this Court has held that access to it for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights may be denied altogether. See Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966). Even where municipal or state property is open to the public generally, the exercise of First Amendment rights may be regulated so as to prevent interference with the use to which the property is ordinarily put by the State. Thus we have upheld a statute prohibiting picketing "in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any . . . county . . . courthouses." Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 616. Likewise it has been indicated that persons could be constitutionally prohibited from picketing "in or near" a court "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice." Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965).
In addition, the exercise of First Amendment rights may be regulated where such exercise will unduly inter fere with the normal use of the public property by other members of the public with an equal right of access to it. Thus it has been held that persons desiring to parade along city streets may be required to secure a permit in order that municipal authorities be able to limit the amount of interference with use of the sidewalks by other members of the public by regulating the time, place, and manner of the parade. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395 (1953). Compare Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949) (use of sound trucks making "loud and raucous noises" on public streets may be prohibited).
However, none of these cases is applicable to the present case. Because the Pennsylvania courts have held that "picketing and trespassing" can be prohibited absolutely on respondents' premises, we have no occasion to consider the extent to which respondents are entitled to limit the location and manner of the picketing or the number of pickets within the mall in order to prevent interference with either access to the market building or vehicular use of the parcel pickup area and parking lot. Likewise, Adderley furnishes no support for the decision below because it is clear that the public has virtually unrestricted access to the property at issue here. Respondents seek to defend the injunction they have obtained by characterizing the requirement that picketing be carried on outside the Logan Mall premises as a regulation rather than a suppression of it. Accepting arguendo such a characterization, the question remains, under the First Amendment, whether it is a permissible regulation.
Petitioners' picketing was directed solely at one establishment within the shopping center. The berms sur rounding the center are from 350 to 500 feet away from the Weis store. All entry onto the mall premises by customers of Weis, so far as appears, is by vehicle from the roads alongside which the berms run. Thus the placards bearing the message which petitioners seek to communicate to patrons of Weis must be read by those to whom they are directed either at a distance so great as to render them virtually indecipherable — where the Weis customers are already within the mall — or while the prospective reader is moving by car from the roads onto the mall parking areas via the entrance ways cut through the berms. In addition, the pickets are placed in some danger by being forced to walk along heavily traveled roads along which traffic moves constantly at rates of speed varying from moderate to high. Likewise, the task of distributing handbills to persons in moving automobiles is vastly greater (and more hazardous) than it would be were petitioners permitted to pass them out within the mall to pedestrians. Finally, the require ment that the picketing take place outside the shopping center renders it very difficult for petitioners to limit its effect to Weis only.
It is therefore clear that the restraints on picketing and trespassing approved by the Pennsylvania courts here substantially hinder the communication of the ideas which petitioners seek to express to the patrons of Weis. The fact that the nonspeech aspects of petitioners' activity are also rendered less effective is not particularly compelling in light of the absence of any showing, or reliance by the state courts thereon, that the patrolling accompanying the picketing sought to be carried on was significantly interfering with the use to which the mall property was being put by both respondents and the general public. As we observed earlier, the mere fact that speech is accompanied by conduct does not mean that the speech can be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. Here it is perfectly clear that a prohibition against trespass on the mall operates to bar all speech within the shopping center to which respondents object. Yet this Court stated many years ago, "[0]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163 (1939).
The sole justification offered for the substantial interference with the effectiveness of petitioners' exercise of their First Amendment rights to promulgate their views through handbilling and picketing is respondents' claimed absolute right under state law to prohibit any use of their property by others without their consent. However, unlike a situation involving a person's home, no meaningful claim to protection of a right of privacy can be advanced by respondents here. Nor on the facts of the case can any significant claim to protection of the normal business operation of the property be raised. Naked title is essentially all that is at issue.
The economic development of the United States in the last 20 years reinforces our opinion of the correctness of the approach taken in Marsh. The large-scale movement of this country's population from the cities to the suburbs has been accompanied by the advent of the suburban shopping center, typically a cluster of individual retail units on a single large privately owned tract. It has been estimated that by the end of 1966 there were between 10,000 and 11,000 shopping centers in the United States and Canada, accounting for approximately 37% of the total retail sales in those two countries.
These figures illustrate the substantial consequences for workers seeking to challenge substandard working conditions, consumers protesting shoddy or overpriced merchandise, and minority groups seeking nondiscriminatory hiring policies that a contrary decision here would have. Business enterprises located in downtown areas would be subject to on-the-spot public criti cism for their practices, but businesses situated in the suburbs could largely immunize themselves from similar criticism by creating a cordon sanitaire of parking lots around their stores. Neither precedent nor policy compels a result so at variance with the goal of free expression and communication that is the heart of the First Amendment.
Therefore, as to the sufficiency of respondents' ownership of the Logan Valley Mall premises as the sole support of the injunction issued against petitioners, we simply repeat what was said in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S., at 506, "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Logan Valley Mall is the functional equivalent of a "business block" and for First Amendment purposes must be treated in substantially the same manner.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners also contend (1) that the state courts were without jurisdiction in this case because the controversy involves issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see Meat Cutters Local 427 v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20 (1957), and (2) that the picketing herein was protected as a "concerted activit[y] for . . . mutual aid or protection" by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 452, 29 U. S. C. § 157. Because of our disposition of the case, we do not reach either contention.
Such congestion as there may have been was regulated by portions of the order not here challenged. See n. 4, infra.
In addition to Local 590, the petitioners herein are various members and officials of the local who were engaged in the picketing in one way or another.
The court also enjoined petitioners from blocking access by anyone to respondents' premises, making any threats or using any violence against customers, employees, and suppliers of Weis, and physically interfering with the performance by Weis employees of their duties. Petitioners make no challenge to these parts of the order and it appears conceded that there has been no subsequent picketing by petitioners in violation of these provisions. A portion of the order also directs that no more than "-pickets" be used at any one time, but no number has ever been inserted into the blank space and thus no limitation appears to have ever been imposed.
We need not concern ourselves with deciding whether the injunction is to be characterized as permanent or temporary. Since the order provides in terms that it shall remain in effect until further modification by the court and since there is no indication that any modification affecting the issues presently before us will be forth coming at any time in the near future, the judgment below upholding the issuance of the injunction is clearly final for purposes of review by this Court. Compare Construction Laborers' Local 438 v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542 (1963).
Petitioners did not argue their pre-emption contentions in their brief before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and, accordingly, that court does not appear to have passed on them.
Needless to say, had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on the purpose of the picketing and held it to be illegal, substantial questions of pre-emption under the federal labor laws would have been presented. Compare Hotel Employees Local 255 v. Sax Enterprises, Inc., 358 U. S. 270 (1959).
We are informed that, in addition to Weis and Sears, 15 other commercial establishments are presently situated in the shopping center.
The picketing carried on by petitioners was directed specifically at patrons of the Weis Market located within the shopping center and the message sought to be conveyed to the public concerned the manner in which that particular market was being operated. We are, therefore, not called upon to consider whether respondents' property rights could, consistently with the First Amendment, justify a bar on picketing which was not thus directly related in its purpose to the use to which the shopping center property was being put.
Compare Cox v. New Hampshire, supra; Cox v. Louisiana, supra; Cameron v. Johnson, supra. It should be noted that portions of the injunction, not contested here by petitioners, do accomplish precisely such a regulation of the picketing. See n. 4, supra.
Respondents argue that this case does not involve petitioners' right to distribute handbills, notwithstanding that the provision of the injunction prohibiting trespassing would seem to encompass entry for the purpose of distributing leaflets, because the petitioners were never engaged in handbifling within the mall. Similarly respondents suggest that the only question concerning picketing in this case relates to the picketing carried on in the parcel pickup area, since almost all the picketing occurred there prior to the issuance of the injunction. We reject the notion that an injunction that by its terms clearly prohibits entry onto the entire mall premises to picket should be given the reading suggested by the respondents simply because it is broader than, the facts at the time required. The injunction is presently still operative and no limiting construction has been placed on it by the Pennsylvania courts. We see nothing to suggest that petitioners could not be immediately cited for contempt if they violated the plain terms of the injunction, whatever its relationship to their previous conduct may be. As for handbifling, the opinion of the trial court reveals that it was prepared to enjoin the handbilling being carried on along the berms had respondents so requested. Given that, the suggestion that the absolute prohibition against petitioners' trespassing on the mall does not include handbilling is likewise untenable. We do not treat petitioners' right to distribute leaflets separately in this opinion simply because a holding that petitioners are entitled to picket within the mall obviously extends to handbilling as well and also because petitioners themselves make no separate issue of it.
Petitioners point out that they could conceivably find themselves charged with conducting an illegal secondary boycott if they do not comply with the rules laid down by the NLRB and the courts governing common situs picketing. Compare Electrical Workers Local 761 v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 667 (1961).
Moreover, the parts of the injunction not contested by petitioners already went a long way towards preventing any such interference. See n. 4, sufra.
Kaylin, A Profile of the Shopping Center Industry, Chain Store Age, May 1966, at 17.
A number of state courts have reached similar conclusions as to shopping centers. See, e. g., Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery Workers Local 31, 61 Cal. 2d 766, 394 P. 2d 921 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 906 (1965); Moreland Corp. v. Retail Store Employees Local 444, 16 Wis. 2d 499, 114 N. W. 2d 876 (1962). Compare Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Wonderland Shopping Center, Inc., 370 Mich. 547, 122 N. W. 2d 785 (1963) (affirming four-to-four a lower court holding that handbilling in a shopping center is protected by the First Amendment).