Opinion ID: 772290
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Categories of Fora

Text: 34 The Supreme Court instructs us that, in assessing a First Amendment claim for speech on government property,we must identify the nature of the forum, because the extent to which the Government may limit access depends on whether the forum is public or nonpublic. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 797 (1985). If the forum is public, speakers can be excluded . . . only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest. Id. at 800. If, on the other hand, the forum is non-public, the government is free to restrict access as long as the restrictions are `reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view.'  Id. (quoting Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983)). 35 Thus, the two main categories of fora are public (where strict scrutiny applies) and non-public (where a more lenient reasonableness standard governs). This does not, however, exhaust the universe of categories. Rather, Forum analysis divides government property into three categories: public fora, designated public fora, and nonpublic fora. 5 DiLoreto v. Downey Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 196 F.3d 958, 964 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 1674 (2000) (quoting Children of the Rosary v. City of Phoenix, 154 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 1998)). A designated public forum exists where the government intentionally opens up a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Id. Restrictions on expressive activity in designated public fora are subject to the same limitations that govern a traditional public forum, i.e., strict scrutiny. Id. at 964-965 (citing International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678 (1992)). 36 The designated public forum has been the source of much confusion. As this court has put it, with considerable understatement, The contours of the terms `designated public forum' and `limited public forum' have not always been clear. DiLoreto, 196 F.3d at 965 n.4. Some courts and commentators refer to a designated public forum  as a limited public forum and use the terms interchangeably. But they are not the same, at least not in this circuit. 6 Rather, a limited public forum is a sub-category of a designated public forum that refer[s] to a type of nonpublic forum that the government has intentionally opened to certain groups or to certain topics. Id. at 965. 7 In a limited public forum, restrictions that are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum are permissible. Id. (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch., 508 U.S. 384, 392-93 (1993)). 37 In other words, the fact that the government has opened a nonpublic forum to expressive activity does not determine whether we must apply strict scrutiny or the lower reasonableness standard. Rather, we must examine the terms on which the forum operates to determine whether it is a designated public forum or a limited public forum. If a forum is a designated public forum, we apply strict scrutiny. But if it is merely a limited public forum, then we apply the reasonableness test. See DiLoreto, 196 F.3d at 965 ([F]irst we must determine whether the fence was a designated public forum subject to heightened scrutiny or a limited public forum subject to a reasonableness standard.). 8 38