Opinion ID: 1801995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Los Angeles International Airport Is a Public Forum Under the California Constitution

Text: The United States Supreme Court developed the public forum doctrine to distinguish between public property subject to the highest free speech protection under the First Amendment and public property subject to a lower level of free speech protection. (See generally Clark v. Burleigh (1992) 4 Cal.4th 474, 482-483 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 455, 841 P.2d 975].) The high court applied that law and concluded that airport terminals (in that case the three major airports in the greater New York City area) are not public forums. ( Lee, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 680-683.) I would reach the same conclusion for LAX under the California Constitution. First, I agree with what is implied in the Ninth Circuit's question and the majority opinion: Public forum analysis applies under the California Constitution as well as under the First Amendment even though the doctrine was developed in First Amendment cases. It is a useful doctrine for deciding what level of protection speech receives in a given context. (See Clark v. Burleigh, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 482-483.) Although this court sometimes interprets the California Constitution differently than the First Amendment, no reason appears to do so here, and good reason exists not to do so. The public, litigators, and government attorneys advising their clients need a clear, consistent public forum doctrine in cases arising on public property, not seemingly random fluctuations between state and federal constitutional law. This is especially true of airports. After the events of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Pub.L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597), which created the Transportation Security Administration and gave it broad authority to oversee the implementation, and ensure the adequacy, of security measures at airports like LAX. (49 U.S.C. § 114(f)(11).) Federal and other authorities overseeing security measures at international airports throughout the country should have one set of constitutional rules to contend with, not multiple sets. Because of the need for interstate and international security cooperation, it benefits no one to have different constitutional rules at California airports than at other airports. Airports are not traditional free speech zones like parks. This is true of the prescreening areas open to the public as well as the postscreening areas. As the majority aptly observes, Although portions of the airport are open to the general public, people usually come to the airport only to travel or to accompany a traveler. Travelers often are in a hurry, and the airport often is crowded. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 459; see also ibid. [quoting Lee, supra, 505 U.S. at pp. 683-684].) People do not go to airports to relax or to socialize, to be entertained or to spend time; they go to airports to get themselves or their friends and loved ones safely and efficiently to their destination. The parties' stipulation of agreed facts (as well as common experience) tells us that [t]he `basic purpose' of LAX is to facilitate, process and serve the traveling public in getting to and from airline flights and moving into and out of the airport terminal areas in a safe, secure, convenient, and efficient fashion. LAX is not, and should not be declared to be, a free speech public forum under either the United States or the California Constitution. In concluding that California constitutional law should differ from First Amendment law regarding airports, Justice Kennard relies primarily on two cases: Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 850 [69 Cal.Rptr.3d 288, 172 P.3d 742] ( Fashion Valley ) and In re Hoffman (1967) 67 Cal.2d 845 [64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353] ( Hoffman ). (Conc. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 461.) Neither case addresses, much less answers, this question. Hoffman, supra, 67 Cal.2d 845, held that First Amendment activities [cannot] be prohibited [at train stations] solely because the property involved is not maintained primarily as a forum for such activities. ( Id. at p. 850.) For three reasons, that opinion has nothing to do with the issue here. First, Hoffman cited solely the First Amendment with no hint that the California Constitution should diverge from First Amendment law in this area. Second, Hoffman concerned train stations in the 1960's, not airports in the 21st century. As the Lee courtin an opinion long predating September 11, 2001noted, there are major differences between airports and other `transportation nodes.' ( Lee, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 681.) To blithely equate airports with other transportation centers, therefore, would be a mistake. ( Id. at p. 682.) Finally, Hoffman simply did not address the question whether a train station is a public forum under the First Amendment, much less whether it is one under the California Constitution, which it never cites. Hoffman held only that free speech rights exist at train stations, which is also true of airports even under my conclusion that they are not public forums. (See pt. B., below.) But Hoffman conducted no public forum analysis, which is not surprising given that the First Amendment public forum doctrine largely developed after that opinion. It never considered what level of protection speech receives at train stations: the highest level reserved for true public forums or the lower level given nonpublic forums. [1] Fashion Valley, supra, 42 Cal.4th 850, held that a shopping mall is a public forum under the California Constitution. [2] A shopping mall is entirely different from an airport for free speech purposes. As Fashion Valley noted, in many cities the public areas of the shopping mall are replacing the streets and sidewalks of the central business district, which `have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' (42 Cal.4th at p. 858.) None of this is remotely true of airports. To equate an airport with a free speech zone is to ignore reality and, perhaps worse, trivialize free speech interests at true public forums.