Opinion ID: 483879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equal Protection Guarantees

Text: 27 Our first amendment analysis also resolves the second issue raised in this appeal: whether the Postal Service's application of the guideline operates to deprive the Committee of equal protection guarantees under the fifth amendment. While distinctions between classes of speech may unconstitutionally burden equal protection rights, see Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (ordinance unconstitutionally allowed labor picketing but prohibited non-labor picketing); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (statute made unconstitutional distinction between peaceful labor picketing and other peaceful picketing), the viability of equal protection claims relating to expressive conduct is contingent upon the existence of a public forum. Perry, 460 U.S. at 55, 103 S.Ct. at 960. Only when rights of access associated with a public forum are improperly limited may we conclude that a fundamental right is impinged. Id. at 54, 103 S.Ct. at 959. 28 The Committee can lay no claim to a fundamental right of access here because the applicable forum is nonpublic. In such cases, regulations of government property which affect expressive conduct will be upheld if they rationally further a legitimate state purpose. Id. As we have explained, the test is met here with little difficulty; the reason advanced by the Postal Service for the guideline is legitimate and rationally furthered by the regulation. 29 The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 30