Document: 482 U.S. 569 107 S.Ct. 2568 96 L.Ed.2d 500 BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS the CITY LOS ANGELES, et al., Petitionersv.JEWS FOR JESUS, INC. and Alan Howard Snyder, aka Avi Snyder. No. 86-104. Argued March 3, 1987. Decided June 15, Syllabus Petitioner Board of Airport Commissioners Los Angeles adopted a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" within "Central Terminal Area" at International Airport. Respondents, nonprofit religious corporation minister for that organization, filed an action in Federal District Court challenging resolution's constitutionality, after had stopped distributing free literature airport's Central Area when warned against doing so by airport officer. The court held was traditional public forum under federal law facially unconstitutional Constitution. Appeals affirmed. Held: violates First Amendment. It is overbreadth doctrine regardless whether involved or nonpublic (which need not be decided here). facial substantial since it prohibits protected expression does merely regulate expressive activity might create problems such as congestion disruption users' activities. Under sweeping ban, virtually every individual who enters may found to violate engaging some activit[y]." ban would even if were because no conceivable governmental interest justify absolute prohibition speech. Moreover, words leave room narrowing, saving construction state courts. Cf. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 360, 84 1316, 12 377. suggestion substantially overbroad intended reach only unrelated airport-related purposes unpersuasive. Much nondisruptive speech related, but still forum. vagueness suggested construction—which result giving officials power decide first instance given related—presents serious constitutional difficulty. Pp. 572-577. 785 F.2d 791 (CA9 1986) O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. WHITE, concurring opinion, which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post, p. ----. James R. Kapel, Angeles, Cal., petitioners. Jay Sekulow, Stone Mountain, Ga., respondents. Justice O'CONNOR 1 issue presented this case (LAX) 2 * On July 13, 1983, (Board) Resolution 13787, provides pertinent part: 3 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED open activities any and/or entity; 4 5 "BE FURTHER effective date Resolution, entity seeks engage Airport, said shall deemed acting contravention stated policy reference uses permitted Airport; 6 engages City Attorney directed institute appropriate litigation ensure compliance with Policy statement Commissioners. . ." App. 4a-5a. 7 Respondent Jews Jesus, Inc., corporation. 6, 1984, Gospel Department Airports peace officer while on pedestrian walkway LAX. showed Snyder copy resolution, explained Snyder's violated requested city take legal him he refused requested. Id., 19a-20a. leaflets left terminal. 20a. 8 Jesus then California, constitutionality both California Constitutions. First, respondents contended Art. I, § 2, Constitution United States bans Second, they alleged been applied discriminatory manner. Finally, urged unconstitutionally vague overbroad. 9 When came before trial, parties orally stipulated facts, treated trial briefs cross-motions summary judgment. law, declined other issues raised did address Ninth Circuit (1986). Relying Rosen Port Portland, 641 1243 1981), Kuszynski Oakland, 479 1130 1973), concluded "an complex forum," F.2d, 795, its face We granted certiorari, 812, 61, 93 20 (1986), now affirm, different grounds. II 10 In balancing government's limiting use property interests those wish activity, has identified three types fora: forum, created government designation, Perry Ed. Assn. Local Educators' Assn., 460 37, 45-46, 103 948, 954-955, 74 794 (1983). proper analysis differs depending area question falls one category rather than another. we have protections are subject heightened scrutiny: 11 "In these quintessential forums, prohibit communicative activity. For State enforce content-based exclusion must show regulation necessary serve compelling narrowly drawn achieve end. also regulations time, place, manner content-neutral, tailored significant interest, ample alternative channels communication." 45, S.Ct., 955. further held, however, access restricted long "is reasonable effort suppress oppose speaker's view." 46, 13 petitioners contend LAX neither nor accordingly argue latter standard governing appropriate. respondents, turn, restrictions. least commentator contends control already airport, therefore concludes analogous Tinker Des Moines School Dist., 393 503, 89 733, 21 731 (1969). See Laycock, Equal Access Moments Silence: Status Religious Speech Private Speakers, 81 Nw.U.L.Rev. 1, 48 Because conclude standard, indeed applicable restricted. 14 doctrine, whose own conduct prohibited challenge statute "because threatens others court—those desire legally refrain from risk prosecution undertake declared partially invalid." Brockett Spokane Arcades, 472 491, 105 2794, 86 394 (1985). A invalidated face, "substantial." Houston Hill, 451, 458-459, 2502, ----, 398 (1987); New York Ferber, 458 747, 769, 102 3348, 3361, 73 1113 (1982); Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 615, 2908, 2917, 37 830 (1973). requirement arose our recognition application is, "manifestly, strong medicine," supra, 613, 2916, "there realistic danger itself will significantly compromise recognized challenged grounds." Council Taxpayers Vincent, 466 789, 801, 104 2118, 2126, 80 772 (1984). 15 reaches universe and, prohibiting expression, purports virtual Free Zone" Instead, expansively states entity," "any [who] Commissioners." LAX; talking reading, wearing campaign buttons symbolic clothing. think obvious cannot justified 16 Additionally, find apparent resolution. expressly applies activities," simply narrowing construction. past sometimes used either abstention certification when, here, courts opportunity give definite See, e.g., Babbitt Farm Workers, 442 289, 99 2301, 60 895 (1979). Neither option, procedure, "fairly interpretation render unnecessary modify question." Harmon Forssenius, 380 528, 535, 85 1177, 1182, 50 (1965). difficulties adopting unlike (1964). At several statutes requiring loyalty oaths. purpose lack construction, their doctrine. observed oath "open few interpretations, indefinite number," "[i]t fictional believe anything less extensive adjudications, impact variety factual situations, bring bounds permissible certainty." 378, 1326. Here too, difficult imagine could limited series chilling effect meantime make case-by-case adjudication intolerable. 17 suggest purposes. Such little assistance reducing speech—such T-shirt button contains political message—may "airport related," Cohen 403 91 1780, 29 284 (1971). presents line between nonairport-related best, murky. petitioners, example, reads newspaper converses neighbor engaged "airport-related" reading conversing permits traveling "pass time." Reply Brief Petitioners 12. presume, categorize member organization decides time" fellow travelers. essence, alone related. "confers police unrestrained arrest charge persons violation" "[t]he abuse, especially where received open-ended interpretation, self-evident." Lewis Orleans, 415 130, 135-136, 94 970, 973, 39 214 (1974) (POWELL, concurring); see U.S., 465, ----; Kolender Lawson, 461 352, 358, 1855, 1858, 75 903 18 overbroad, fairly Accordingly, hold judgment 19 Affirmed. whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring. I join Court's should taken indicating majority considers That questions postponed another day.

Category: 2