Court Opinion

ID: 9516155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:35:51.836944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:40.789052
License: Public Domain

SCHREIBER, J.,
concurring.
I join in the conclusion reached today by the majority that the judgment of conviction be reversed. However, I am not in *576accord with the majority’s analysis of the United States Supreme Court’s opinions concerning the First Amendment and believe that under its decisions the First Amendment (via the Fourteenth Amendment) has not been violated. Moreover, I would hold that Princeton University’s obligation under Article I, par. 6 of the New Jersey Constitution depends upon its dedication to the public of its property.1
For Schmid to succeed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments he must establish that the actions taken by Princeton University constituted state action. After discussing several theories and rationales and concluding that their application does not constitute state action, ante at 544-549, the majority seems to say that the holding in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 601, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1966), may justify a finding of state action under the facts in this case. I do not agree. Marsh v. Alabama must be considered in the light of three succeeding opinions of the United States Supreme Court, Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972), and Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976).2
*577In Marsh, the Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected the exercise of free speech in a company-owned town which was open to the public generally. The sole distinguishing characteristic of this town was that title to all the property was vested in a private corporation. Justice Black, writing for the majority, reasoned that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property to use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. at 506, 66 S.Ct. at 278, 90 L.Ed. at 268. He held that people who lived in a municipality were not to be denied freedom of press and religion simply because a private company holds legal title to all the town. Hence, a Jehovah’s Witness who distributed religious literature on the “public” sidewalk against the private owner’s wishes could not be convicted of criminal trespass.
In Logan Valley, the Supreme Court extended the Marsh rationale to provide First Amendment protections for union members picketing a store on shopping center property. It held that the shopping center was “the functional equivalent of a ‘business block’ ” and must be treated in substantially the same manner as the business district in a company town. Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. at 325, 88 S.Ct. at 1612, 20 L.Ed.2d at 616. Significantly, Justice Black, author of the Marsh opinion, dissented. He wrote that “Marsh was never intended to apply to this kind of situation. *578Marsh dealt with the very special situation of a company -owned town, complete with streets, alleys, sewers, stores, residences, and everything else that goes to make a town.” Id. at 330, 88 S.Ct. at 1615, 20 L.Ed.2d at 619 (Black, J., dissenting).
Four years later the Supreme Court reconsidered and distinguished Logan Valley in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. The Court held that persons distributing handbills protesting the Vietnam War in a private shopping center were not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and were, therefore, subject to prosecution for criminal trespass. In its opinion the Court described the Marsh holding in the following manner: “In effect, the owner of the company town was performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. at 569, 92 S.Ct. at 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d at 143. The Court distinguished Logan Valley by limiting its application to situations in which two factors exist. First, the expression sought to be protected must be related to the use of the private property. Second, there must be no other reasonable opportunity available to the person claiming protection for conveying his message to his intended audience. Id. at 563, 92 S.Ct. at 226, 33 L.Ed.2d at 140.
In Hudgens v. NLRB, the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Stewart held that striking warehouse employees did not have a First Amendment right to enter a private shopping center to picket a retail outlet. In determining whether the expression was constitutionally protected, the Court did not apply the two elements discussed in Lloyd. Instead, it concluded that despite efforts in Lloyd to distinguish Logan Valley, “the rationale of Logan Valley did not survive the Court’s decision in the Lloyd case.” Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. at 518, 96 S.Ct. at 1036, 47 L.Ed.2d at 206. See PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 78-79, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2039, 64 L.Ed.2d 741, 751-752 (1980). Justice Stewart commenced with the premise that the right of free speech is constitutionally guaranteed against abridgment by only the federal or state governments-and that an exception to this truism was Marsh -where the company town was the functional equivalent of a municipal*579ity. He quoted approvingly from Justice Black’s dissent in Logan Valley that the shopping center was not the equivalent of a town. He concluded that, if the shopping center “is the functional equivalent of a municipality,” then constitutional protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments would apply. 424 U.S. at 520, 96 S.Ct. at 1036, 47 L.Ed.2d at 207.
The rationale advanced in Hudgens, relying as it does on Marsh and Justice Black’s dissent in Logan Valley, clearly indicates that the characteristics relied upon in Lloyd to distinguish Logan Valley, namely, related expression and no alternative access, are not relevant. Since Hudgens states that Logan Valley was not sound, the reasons given in Lloyd to distinguish Logan Valley cease to be significant. Thus, the presence of speech related to the particular enterprise and the absence of an adequate alternative to presentation of that speech are not determinants of the existence or nonexistence of state action.
Neither Lloyd nor Hudgens purports to overrule Marsh. In fact, they expressly affirm its rationale. However, these decisions make it clear that Marsh is not to be given an expansive reading. Private property must possess all the attributes of or be the equivalent of a state created municipality before it stands in the shoes of the State for First and Fourteenth Amendment purposes. Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. at 569, 92 S.Ct. at 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d at 143; Hudgens v. NLRB, 425 U.S. at 513-522, 96 S.Ct. at 1033 1037, 47 L.Ed.2d at 202-207.
Princeton University is not the functional equivalent of a company town as that term has been construed by the Supreme Court. Its main function is to support an academic community. In doing so, it provides services, such as dormitories, eating facilities, and a security force, which can fairly be classified as “attributes of a state-created municipality.” But the present United States Supreme Court decisions require that all of the “attributes” be assumed by the private enterprise. Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. at 569, 92 S.Ct. at 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d at 143. Because of its primary role as an educational institution, Princeton University lacks a number of important attributes which municipalities typically possess. For example, there is no sug*580gestión in the record that Princeton University’s campus has either a commercial district, an elementary or secondary school system, a fire department or a sewage disposal plant. Since Princeton University does not fit within the Marsh rationale, its efforts to restrain Schmid’s distribution of political literature do not constitute state action. Consequently, the criminal prosecution brought to enforce Princeton’s legal rights was not in violation of Schmid’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
I agree with the majority that Princeton University under the circumstances here is subject to the free speech strictures of the State Constitution.3 Unlike its counterpart in the Federal Constitution, the New Jersey constitutional guaranty of free speech is not circumscribed by the need to find state action. However, a countervailing precept in the New Jersey Constitution is the owner’s right to possess and protect property. N.J.Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 1. In harmonizing these seemingly inconsistent rights, it would appear appropriate to subordinate the property owner’s rights to the more fundamental concept of the right of free speech when the owner has dedicated its property for a public use involving public discussion.4 See Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 491, 303 A.2d 273 (1973), where Chief Justice Weintraub commented that the constitutional right to acquire and hold property is not a likely candidate for preferred treatment as a fundamental right.
An analogous situation may be found in Doe v. Bridgeton Hospital Ass’n, 71 N.J. 478, 366 A.2d 641 (1976), in which a woman’s right to an abortion conflicted with a hospital’s policy to prevent the use of its property for that purpose. This Court held that the nonsectarian, nonprofit hospital which held out the use of its facilities to the general public assumed quasi -pub-*581lie obligations akin to those assumed by common carriers and innkeepers at common law. Accordingly, the hospital, having the facilities and manpower to perform abortions, could not refuse, on moral grounds, to permit use of its facilities to perform an elective abortion.
The nature and extent of the property owner’s holding out or dedication of his property for public use determine what, if any, public function has been undertaken. The scope of the constitutional restraints inherent in that public function may then be ascertained. Obviously there must be a nexus between the purpose of the property owner’s dedication and the purpose of the public’s use. Thus in Doe the holding out of the hospital facility for use in a medical capacity would not justify the exercise of a constitutional right to use the hospital as a political forum. Finally, the public’s exercise of its constitutional right is subject to the property owner’s regulations governing time, place and manner. The reasonableness of such regulations depends upon many factors including alternative means which the public may have available to exercise that constitutional right.
As the majority indicates, Princeton has made its campus available as a forum for an open and robust exchange of political ideas and opinions by both the Princeton community and the public generally. In fact, the University has acknowledged that this type of public debate lies at the core of its intellectual academic life. Such a commitment of its facilities and property constitutes a holding out of this property for a public use. As such Princeton has assumed a public function. Since Schmid’s political expression is consistent with the achievement of Princeton’s goals, he is entitled to the protection of the right of free speech guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution.
Moreover, Princeton University’s independence, an element which in many respects is essential in the private academic world, is not thwarted by the State’s protection of free speech. It is not a threat to or intrusion upon that independence. Rather, as Justice Handler has cogently pointed out, protection *582of the public’s right to political speech accords with Princeton’s fundamental philosophy of open debate. It is precisely for that reason Princeton is subject to the State’s interest.
SCHREIBER, J., concurring in the result.
PASHMAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For reversal - Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK 7.
For affirmance None.

it is not clear whether the majority is relying upon a balancing process, ante at 560-561, or is in effect advocating the same principle suggested herein. Compare ante at 564-566 with infra at 580.

In Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948), the Supreme Court held that judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant governing a private sale of land constituted state action. Despite ample opportunity to apply the Shelley rationale, the Supreme Court has not found that mere prosecution and conviction under a criminal trespass statute furnishes the necessary state action. See Peterson v. Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 83 S.Ct. 1119, 10 L.Ed.2d 323 (1963); Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 83 S.Ct. 1122, 10 L.Ed.2d 338 (1963); Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153, 84 S.Ct. 1693, 12 L.Ed.2d 771 (1964); Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 84 S.Ct. 1814, 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964). Moreover, the Marsh line of cases did not rely upon enforcement of state trespass statutes. Only Justice Marshall has interpreted these cases to hold that state action existed because of trespass actions. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 89-90, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2045, 64 L.Ed.2d 741, 758 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring). See also Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 158-163, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1734, 56 L.Ed. *5772d 185, 195-197 (1978); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352-354, 95 S.Ct. 449, 454, 42 L.Ed.2d 477, 485-486 (1974).
Logical application of the reasoning in Shelley would result in the virtual demise of the limiting aspect of the “state action” concept. Individuals would have to conform their private agreements and activities to constitutional standards “whenever, as almost always, [those] individuals might later seek the security of potential judicial enforcement.” Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 18-2 at 1156 (1978). For that reason, its rationale has been considered suspect. See Henkin, “Shelley v. Kraemer: Notes for a Revised Opinion,” 110 U.Pa.L.Rev. 473 (1962); Gilbert, “Theories of State Action as Applied to the ‘Sit-In’ Cases,” 17 Ark.L.Rev. 147 (1963); Comment, “The Impact of Shelley v. Kraemer on the State Action Concept,” 44 Calif.L.Rev. 718 (1956); and Comment, 45 Mich.L.Rev. 733 (1947).

Article I, par. 6 of the New Jersey Constitution (1947) states:
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press ....

This case is to be distinguished from the exercise by the State of its general police power impacting on private property interests for public good.