Opinion ID: 2597507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins

Text: In PruneYard, the California Supreme Court construed its state constitution to protect free speech and petition rights, when reasonably exercised, in privately owned shopping centers, and the shopping center owner argued on appeal to the United States Supreme Court that recognition of such rights violated his right to exclude others. 447 U.S. at 78, 100 S.Ct. 2035. The Court stated that its reasoning in Lloyd did not ex proprio vigore limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution. Id. at 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the property owners were sufficiently protected by the ability to restrict expressive activity by adopting time, place, and manner restrictions that will minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Id. at 83, 100 S.Ct. 2035. The United States Supreme Court concluded that neither the property owners'federally recognized property rights nor their [f]irst [a]mendment rights have been infringed by the California Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right of appellees to exercise state-protected rights of expression and petition on appellants' property. Id. at 88, 100 S.Ct. 2035.