Case: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., et al. v. Donald J. DEVINE, Director, United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant
Abbreviation: NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Devine
Decision Date: 1984-02-17
Docket Number: No. 83-1822
Citation: 234 U.S. App. D.C. 148
Volume: 234
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., et al. v. Donald J. DEVINE, Director, United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, EDWARDS and STARR, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 148–184

Head Matter:
727 F.2d 1247
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., et al. v. Donald J. DEVINE, Director, United States Office of Personnel Management, Appellant.
No. 83-1822.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 17, 1983.
Decided Feb. 17, 1984.
As Amended Feb. 17, 1984.
Alfred R. Mollin, Atty. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C. (at the time the brief was filed) and Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellant.
Charles Stephen Ralston, New York City, with whom James M. Nabrit III, New York City, Elaine R. Jones, Washington, D.C., Barry L. Goldstein, Brent Simmons, William L. Robinson, New York City, Norman J. Chachkin, Stuart J. Land, Boris Feldman, Robert T. Coulter, Walter B. Slocombe, M. Carolyn Cox and Douglas B. Jordan, Wash ington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Mozart G. Ratner and Allison Beck, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for amicus curiae Intern. Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, urging reversal.
Before WRIGHT, EDWARDS and STARR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.
Dissenting Opinion filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:
Charitable solicitation of Federal employees or military personnel at their workplaces or duty stations is conducted exclusively through an annual fund raising drive called the Combined Federal Campaign (the "CFC" or the "campaign"). On February 10, 1983, the Government issued an executive order excluding legal defense funds from future participation in CFCs. See Exec.Order No. 12,404, 48 Fed.Reg. 6,685 (1983). The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ("NAACP LDF") and six other legal defense funds, all recognized by the Government as lawful charitable organizations, brought suit arguing that the decision to exclude them from the CFC violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The District Court agreed and, by summary judgment, permanently enjoined Donald Devine, Director of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), from excluding the appellees from participating in CFCs on the basis of Executive Order 12,404.
Because we find the exclusion of LDFs from the CFC to be patently capricious and unreasonable, we agree with the result reached by the District Court. We therefore affirm.
I. Background
A. The'Combined Federal Campaign
As the appellant has previously acknowledged, "[i]t has been long-standing policy of the Federal Government to cooperate with and assist voluntary health and welfare agencies in soliciting funds for worthy causes from Federal personnel." Memorandum from Donald J. Devine to David A. Stock-man 1 (Oct. 22, 1981) (hereinafter "Devine Memo II"), reprinted in I Joint Appendix 70 (hereinafter "J.A."). Prior to the creation of the CFC, this policy was implemented essentially in an ad hoc manner: "[t]he heads of some Federal facilities permitted no solicitations whatsoever; at other Federal worksites, no restrictions were imposed, and it was not uncommon for a collection to be taken up each week on behalf of one charity or another." Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Manpower and Housing of the House Comm, on Governmental Operations 29 (1983) (statement of Donald J. Devine) (hereinafter "Devine testimony"), reprinted in II J.A. 397.
The early haphazard approaches to solicitations for charitable causes proved to be largely unsatisfactory. Charities "could not understand why they were allowed to solicit in some Federal establishments and not in others, nor did they appreciate the fact that some charities seemed to have the support of Federal management" while others did not. Id. Federal employees were sometimes confused or upset at being subjected to repeated solicitations. Id. The situation created an "intolerable administrative burden for Federal officials," Devine Memo II, supra, at 1, reprinted in I J.A. 70, as well as "an increasingly chaotic situation in Federal offices." Memorandum from Donald J. Devine to Craig L. Fuller 2 (Feb. 2, 1983) (hereinafter "Devine Memo III"), reprinted in I J.A. 107.
In 1961, "in order to control and simplify the process of charitable solicitation in the Federal workplace," President Kennedy created the CFC. Id. He "directed that all ad hoc solicitations be ended, and that worthy charities be permitted to solicit in the Federal workplace through a single, annual drive combining all participating [charitable] agencies." Devine testimony, supra, at 29-30, reprinted in II J.A. 397-98. To implement this plan, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10,927, instructing that arrangements be made "for such national voluntary health and welfare agencies and such other national voluntary agencies as may be appropriate to solicit funds from Federal employees and members of the armed forces at their places of employment or duty stations." Exec.Order No. 10,927, § 2(a), 3 C.F.R. 454 (1959-1963 Compilation).
The mechanics of the CFC have been described at length in other judicial opinions, see NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. v. Devine, 560 F.Supp. 667 (D.D.C.1983) ("NAACP LDF II''); NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. v. Campbell, 504 F.Supp. 1365 (D.D.C.1981) ("NAACP I"); therefore, we will highlight only those features that are necessary to understand the dispute at hand. The CFC is governed by the Director of the OPM, who makes all "basic policy, procedural, and eligibility decisions for the program." 5 C.F.R. § 950.201(a) (1983). Normally, there is bifurcated responsibility for the CFC drive in each participating locality. A designated private voluntary organization (the "Principal Combined Fund Organization" or "PCFO") "will raise money from Federal employees and administer the local campaign." Id. § 950.211(e). A local Federal coordinating committee oversees the PCFO, and is authorized to make decisions regarding administration of the local campaign (subject to those constraints imposed by the Director). Id. § 950.211(a), 950.509. The PCFO is reimbursed for its administrative expenses from the funds raised for the participating charities. Id. § 950.509(e); appellant's brief, p. 13.
Each local campaign consists of a "single, annual drive," conducted in the fall. 5 C.F.R. § 950.103(b), (c) (1983). The Federal agencies involved conduct their "own solicitation among [their] employees, using campaign materials, supplies, and speakers furnished by or through" the PCFO. Id. § 950.103(d). Federal employees are encouraged to participate in this and other CFC responsibilities undertaken by the Federal Government "to the extent consistent with Federal agency policy and prudent use of official time. They are encouraged also to devote private time to such volunteer work." Id. § 950.105.
An information leaflet is distributed to each potential contributor. Id. § 950.521(c). This leaflet is printed and supplied by the PCFO, id. § 950.521(a), and is accompanied by a brochure listing each charity (or "voluntary agency") approved for participation in the campaign and providing "a brief statement of about 30 words on [each charity's] programs." Id. § 950.521(e)(2)(i). The content of this statement is provided by the participating charities and/or the PCFO, subject to approval of the local Federal coordinating committee.
Federal employees who choose to contribute can either (1) designate specific participating charities for receipt of the contribution or (2) make undesignated contributions. Undesignated contributions are pooled and deemed designated to the local PCFO, id. § 950.513(a), which can then distribute the funds "to any participant in the local CFC." 47 Fed.Reg. 29,497 (1982).
B. Exclusion of Legal Defense Funds From the CFC
In 1980, the NAACP LDF and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. ("PR LDF") applied to participate in the CFC, but the Government refused this request, arguing that these LDFs did not provide direct services to persons in the fields of health and welfare services. See Appellant's brief, p. 6. This exclusion was challenged in NAACP I, where the District Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the "direct services" requirement did "not have the precision necessary to comport with [the First Amendment's] requirements." 504 F.Supp. at 1368. The court also challenged the suggestion that the plaintiffs did not provide direct services to the needy, pointing out that:
The record is replete with the results of plaintiffs' work, indicating that law suits by plaintiffs have provided millions of dollars in back pay and benefits, and invaluable other "services" such as increased training opportunities, additional promotions, improved school programs, and better hospital facilities. Apart from their litigation activities, each plaintiff also provides "direct services" through scholarship programs and education efforts.
Id. The court enjoined the defendant from using the direct services requirement as a basis for rejecting pending or future applications from the plaintiffs, and encouraged the "government officials responsible for the program to re-examine the basic premises on which [the CFC] was established so that more acceptable standards [could] be developed." Id. at 1369.
In June 1981, the appellant circulated a memorandum discussing the NAACP I opinion and eligibility for the 1981 CFC. See Memorandum from Donald J. Devine to Department and Agency Fund-Raising Program Coordinators and Chairmen, Field Coordinating Groups (June 9, 1981) (hereinafter "Devine Memo I"), reprinted in I J.A. 52. In his review of so-called "borderline cases," Devine explained that while the imprecision of the "direct services" requirement had made it constitutionally infirm, he nevertheless found "some merit in the argument that these [legal defense funds do] not fall under Executive Order 10927." Despite the decision in NAACP I, Devine also persisted in contending that there is "logic to the direct vs. indirect services distinction." On this point, Devine argued that "[t]he difficulty is that the Manual does not define either of these criteria with the specificity required by the Court." Id. at 4, I J.A. 55.
Because more precise definitions had yet to be formulated, the memorandum concluded that the legal defense funds "must be allowed to participate in the present campaign," but added that this question was "among those that will be reviewed for the next campaign." Id. The memorandum also reported that "serious procedural questions have been raised regarding the eligibility" of the Planned Parenthood World-Population organization, but determined that "the facts presented are in doubt." Id. In discussing his decisions for the 1981 campaign, Devine offered that he had "come to the reluctant conclusion . [that] it is probably too late in the planning process to make the wholesale revisions which are necessary" to bring the regulations "more in accord with the precision required by the First Amendment." Id. at 3, 1 J.A. 54. Adequate standards would, he assured, be promulgated for the 1982 campaign. Id. at 5, I J.A. 56.
In October 1981, the appellant sent a memorandum to David Stockman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Devine Memo II, supra, reprinted in I J.A. 70. The subject of this memorandum was a proposed new executive order which, among other things, provided that to be eligible for the CFC, an organization could "not seek to influence . . the determination of public policy . by litigating public policy in any court on behalf of any person other than itself." Id. at 9, I J.A. 78. The appellant argued that unless this and other proposed eligibility restrictions were adopted:
[T]he inevitable result will be mandatory admission to the Combined Federal Campaign of a multitude of organizations whose programs, whatever their benefit in other ways, are considered less critical to the national interest than those directed at common human needs in the areas of health and welfare. Furnishing Federal administrative effort and indirect support to obtain contributions for programs of lower priority would clearly conflict with the thrust of the President's budget decisions to accord priority of Federal support to vital health and welfare programs.
Id. at 3, 1 J.A. 72.
The proposed executive order was not adopted prior to the 1982 campaign. Instead, on March 23, 1982, Executive Order 12,353 was issued, revoking Executive Order 10,927, but retaining its general eligibility standard allowing "appropriate" national voluntary agencies to participate in the CFC. Exec.Order No. 12,353, § 1, 9, 3 C.F.R. 139-40 (1982 Compilation). Pursuant to authority granted under the new executive order, the appellant promulgated comprehensive regulations to govern the 1982 campaign. These regulations defined "national voluntary health and welfare agencies and such other national voluntary agencies as may be appropriate" in language that clearly included LDFs. 5 C.F.R. § 950.101(a)(2), (3)(vii) (1983).
Despite this official stance, there is no indication in the record that the appellant's opposition to LDF participation in the CFC, as expressed in the June and October 1981 memoranda, ever waivered. Indeed, the appellant has contended that LDFs were admitted into the CFC in 1981 and 1982 "with the hope of reducing the potential for further litigation." Devine testimony, supra, at 32, reprinted in II J.A. 400. See also Devine Memo III, at 7, reprinted in I J.A. 112 (indicating that "litigation is highly likely" to result from executive order excluding LDFs). On February 2, 1983, a memorandum from the appellant to Craig Fuller, Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs, implied that inclusion of LDFs in the CFC had been viewed as an impermanent approach, id. at 3-4, I J.A. 108-09, and argued that exclusion of LDFs was "urgently required." Id. at 8, I J.A. 113. This memorandum included a draft executive order which incorporated almost verbatim the appellant's October 1981 proposal to exclude LDFs. Id. at 9, I J.A. 114.
The February 2, 1983 memorandum offered somewhat different justifications for the proposed exclusions than those that had been voiced previously. First, it was claimed that "[mjany employees objected" to inclusion of—in the appellant's words— "aggressive and controversial political and legal advocacy" groups. Id. at 4, 5, I J.A. 109, 110. He explained that "[sjeveral unions organized boycotts of the CFC because of the participation of such groups as the Right to Work Legal Defense Fund." Id. at 4, I J.A. 109. The appellant argued that these protests jeopardized the CFC's fund-raising objective, id., and later warned that unless the campaign was reformed "devastating" employee boycotts "would bring the life of the Campaign to an end." Devine testimony, supra, at 6, reprinted in II J.A. 388. Second, the exclusion was justified by the impropriety of the Government's use of "taxpayer resources to raise funds for advocacy organizations and political education groups, however worthy or sympathetic may be their causes." Id. at 4-5, I J.A. 109-10. Finally, the appellant argued that because it was "becoming increasingly difficult to draw any lines and keep participation to a manageable number of organizations" the President had directed that the CFC be limited to "traditional health and welfare agencies." Id. at 5, I J.A. 110.
One week later, Executive Order 12,404 was issued. It enumerated the objectives of the CFC and established new eligibility criteria. The new criteria are both inclusionary and exclusionary. The inclusionary provision specifies that participation in the CFC is limited to organizations that are considered "voluntary, charitable, health and welfare agencies," and details at some length what this phrase encompasses. The exclusionary provision stipulates that "[ajgencies that seek to influence the outcomes of elections or the determination of public policy through political activity or advocacy, lobbying, or litigation on behalf of parties other than themselves shall not be deemed . eligible to participate" in the CFC. Exec.Order No. 12,404, § 1(b), 48 Fed.Reg. 6,685 (1983).
C. The District Court Proceedings
Shortly after issuance of Executive Order 12,404, the appellees brought suit arguing that the order unconstitutionally excludes them from the CFC. The appellees relied on the First Amendment, and their right to equal protection under the law, and requested that the appellant be enjoined from excluding the appellees from the campaign.
In analyzing the appellees' claims, the District Court carefully distinguished between the appellees' interests in designated and undesignated contributions. The court held that when soliciting designated contributions "an organization seeks to persuade an employee to make a donation to that organization," and Government restrictions on this solicitation are constrained by the First Amendment. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. v. Devine, 567 F.Supp. 401, 406 (D.D.C.1983) ("NAACP III"). In contrast, control over the distri bution of undesignated contributions is yielded to the CFC; such contributions are dedicated to the public good, and are not a response to the appeal of particular organizations. The lower court thus concluded that First Amendment rights are not implicated by restrictions on the distribution of undesignated contributions; such restrictions are "more properly the subject of an equal protection analysis." Id. Finding that the appellees' equal protection claim regarding undesignated contributions was not ripe, the lower court dismissed this portion of the appellees' suit. This dismissal is not appealed.
However, the court held that excluding LDFs from the designated contribution portion of the CFC was unconstitutional. This decision was predicated on the court's finding that the CFC was a limited public forum. It reasoned that the CFC "permits numerous charitable organizations to present their messages to federal employees," id., and " 'the government has, in effect, provided a billboard or channel of communication through which organizations can disseminate their appeals to federal workers.'" 567 F.Supp. at 407 (quoting NAACP I, 504 F.Supp. at 1367). Moreover, because "Executive Order 10927 made no differentiation among charitable organizations on the basis of how they accomplish their objectives," the court held that the appellees did "fall within the limits of that forum as it historically has existed." Id.
The court then considered, and agreed with, the appellees' claim that the exclusion of LDFs from the CFC was a content-based prohibition on speech, which would only be justified by a compelling state interest. It reasoned that as the protected expression "in an act of charitable solicitation is a request for contributions, the 'content' of that expression is the accompanying statement of how those contributions will be used. It is this 'content' that has, according to defendant, engendered such controversy among potential contributors as to warrant the exclusion based thereupon." Id. Finding that there was no compelling state interest to support the Government's position, the court enjoined the appellant from using Executive Order 12,404 to exclude legal defense funds from participating in CFCs. In particular, the court held that the Government's interest in excluding allegedly controversial groups from the forum was "an impermissible basis for a restriction upon speech." 567 F.Supp. at 408.
II. Discussion
A. First Amendment Restrictions on Government Regulation of Access to the CFC
Charitable solicitation indisputably involves speech interests "that are within the protection of the First Amendment." Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 833, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980). See also Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2563, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981); National Black United Fund, Inc. v. Devine, 667 F.2d 173, 178 (D.C.Cir.1981). While conceding this general proposition, the appellant posits that the CFC does not involve solicitation by the participating charities, and is more accurately described as a "subsidy" by the Federal Government. The appellant then argues that the Government's decision to restrict this subsidy to certain charities does "not implicate the First Amendment." Appellant's brief, p. 25.
The appellant's description of the nature of the CFC flies in the face of uniform, and unequivocal, Government characterizations of the campaign over the past 20 years. In 1961, Executive Order 10,927 directed that arrangements be made for charitable organizations to "solicit funds" from Government employees, Exec. Order No. 10,927, § 2(a), 3 C.F.R. 454 (1959-1963 Compilation), and the two sub sequent executive orders have contained similar mandates. See Exec.Order No. 12,-404, § 1(a), 48 Fed.Reg. 6,685 (1983) (Director "shall make arrangements for voluntary health and welfare agencies to solicit contributions from Federal employees . at their places of employment or duty."); Exec.Order No. 12,353, § 1, 3 C.F.R. 139 (1982 Compilation) (same). The appellant has testified that President Kennedy's directive was "that worthy charities be permitted to solicit in the Federal workplace," Devine testimony, supra, at 3, reprinted in II J.A. 385, and even in this litigation, he has acknowledged that the CFC "permits traditional health and welfare charities to make a strictly limited appeal in the federal workplace." Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 40, NAACP III, 567 F.Supp. 401 (D.D.C.1983).
This uniform characterization of the CFC as permitting charities to solicit is entirely consistent with the long-standing practices followed under the program. The Government has understandably imposed time, place, and manner restrictions to prevent disruption of its facilities by solicitation through the CFC. These restrictions have never been viewed as depriving the permitted solicitation of any First Amendment protections, and they surely have not converted "solicitations" into "subsidies." The CFC remains a limited, but critical, opportunity for charitable organizations to prepare and—with the support of the Government—disseminate their message to Federal employees. See National Black United Fund, Inc., 667 F.2d at 179 ("The CFC clearly provides some charities with a substantial opportunity to publicize their views .") (footnote omitted). In reaching this conclusion, which is in accord with the position taken by the lower court and every other court that has considered the question, we are adhering to the view we expressed in National Black United Fund, Inc.
Because this case involves restrictions on First Amendment activity, it presents an entirely different question than that decided in the case cited by the appellant, Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983). In Taxation With Representation, the Court upheld a statute granting a tax exemption to certain nonprofit organizations that did not engage in substantial lobbying activities. In ruling that the First Amendment did not require Congress to extend this subsidy to the plaintiff's lobbying activities, the Court expressly pointed out that "[i]n this case . . Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity." 103 S.Ct. at 2001.
Although it is obvious that the CFC does involve a minor element of "subsidization," it is equally clear that the CFC also involves the regulation of important First Amendment activity. While we are in agreement with the District Court's finding that the Government has undertaken a role in the CFC so that it can most effectively regulate, rather than subsidize, charitable solicitation of Federal employees, see NAACP III, 567 F.Supp. at 408, we need not reexamine this determination here. For even if we accepted the appellant's contention that subsidization is one purpose of the CFC, it is clear that this would not insulate the campaign from the commands of the First Amendment. Permitting public speech on Government property, in Government facilities, or in a forum such as the CFC, will often involve some quantum of Government subsidization, and yet there has never been the faintest suggestion in the case law that at some indeterminate level this causes the strictures of the First Amendment to dissipate. See Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (use of intraschool mailing system); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981) (use of university facilities); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975) (use of public auditorium). While the costs incurred by the Government can certainly be relevant to the Government's interest in regulating access to public property for First Amendment activities, the Government's decision to incur such costs surely does not entirely remove such regulation from the purview of the First Amendment.
While we reject the appellant's claim that the First Amendment is not even implicated in this case, we also recognize that "the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114, 129, 101 S.Ct. 2676, 2685, 69 L.Ed.2d 517 (1981). As the Supreme Court has often indicated, "the State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." E.g., id. In determining the degree of protection afforded by the First Amendment in this case, we are governed by the test articulated in Perry Education Association, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). See generally Cass, First Amendment Access to Government Facilities, 65 Va.L.Rev. 1287 (1979); Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup.Ct.Rev. 1; Stone, Fora Americana: Speech in Public Places, 1974 Sup.Ct.Rev. 233; Note, A Unitary Approach to Claims of First Amendment Access to Publicly Owned Property, 35 Stan.L.Rev. 121 (1982).
In Perry, the Court considered a rival union's challenge to a collective bargaining provision between a school district and the teachers' exclusive bargaining representative. The provision stipulated that the bargaining representative, but no other union, would have access to the interschool mail system and teacher mailboxes in the district's schools. In evaluating the rival union's claim that this restriction violated its First Amendment rights, the Court distinguished three types of public property:
(1) Traditional Public Forums. "At one end of the spectrum" is property such as streets and parks, which by tradition has " 'been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' " 103 S.Ct. at 954-55 (quoting Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515 [59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423] (1939)). In these forums, communicative activity cannot be entirely prohibited, and content-based exclusions will be sustained only if the Government shows they are necessary to serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Id. [103 S.Ct.] at 955. Content-neutral regulations of time, place, and manner of expression can also be enforced if they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant Government interest, and if ample alternative channels of communication are left open. Id.
(2) Limited Public Forums. Public property "which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity," id., may constitute a limited public forum. Although the state may not have been required to create this forum originally, and "is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Id.
(3) Public Property that is Neither a Traditional Nor a Limited Public Forum. "Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards." Id. On this property, the Government may impose time, place, and manner regulations, and also "may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Id.
In applying this tripartite analysis to the facts in Perry, the Court held that the school mail facilities fell within the third (nonpublic forum) category. Id. The Court explained that there was no evidence indicating that permission had been granted "as a matter of course" to all who sought to distribute material; although selective access had been permitted to groups "such as the YMCA, Cub Scouts, and other civic and church organizations," this was not sufficient to "transform government property into a public forum." Id. at 956. Independently, the Court held that even assuming that this selective access had transformed the property into a limited public forum, the constitutional right of access would "extend only to other entities of similar character." As the purposes of the rival union's communications were entirely different than those of the civic organizations that had been permitted access, the rival union was not encompassed by the limited forum. Id.
In the instant case, the parties have debated at length the correctness of the lower court's holding that the CFC is a "limited public forum." In our view it is unnecessary to decide this question. Even in forums falling within the third (nonpublic forum) category identified in Perry, the First Amendment imposes constraints on the Government's right to allow access to some speakers while denying it to others. "The touchstone for evaluating" a differential access policy by the Government is whether the distinctions relied on by the Government "are reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves." Perry, 103 S.Ct. at 957 (footnote omitted). Because our subsequent discussion reveals that the exclusion of LDFs does not satisfy this reasonableness standard, we do not decide whether the test used in cases involving limited public forums is applicable.
B. Application of the Reasonableness Test to Differential Treatment of Like Speakers
In Perry, the Supreme Court held that the school district's differential access policy satisfied the reasonableness standard applicable to public property falling within the third (nonpublic forum) category. In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that the district's differential access policy was "based on the status of the respective unions rather than their views." 103 S.Ct. at 957. The Court explained that a bargaining representative "has official duties as representative [of the district's] teachers." Id. at 958 n. 10. Use of the school mail facilities enabled the bargaining representative to perform these duties effectively. Id. at 958. In essence then, the district had simply restricted use of the mail system "to those who participate]/!] in the forum's official business," id. at 959 (footnote omitted)—a restriction that was permissible "without further justification." Id. The Court also found that the exclusion of a rival union was reasonable because of the need to insure "labor-peace within the schools," id. (footnote omitted), and because "substantial alternative channels [remained] open for union-teacher communication to take place." Id. Finally, the Court considered, but ultimately rejected, the rival union's suggestion that the district's policy was overinclusive and underinclusive. Id. at 959 n. 13.
In this case, we also must evaluate a differential access policy adopted by the Government. While the Government has granted hundreds of charities access to the CFC, the Government has expressly denied access to the appellees and other LDFs. In one essential respect, however, this case is strikingly different from Perry: there is no discernible difference in the status of the appellees and that of the organizations which have been permitted access to the CFC.
In contrast to Perry, this is not a case in which access has been restricted to those engaged in the forum's official business— both the included charities and the appellees wish to engage in charitable solicitation through the CFC. Aside from this obvious equivalence, there are other manifest and substantial similarities between the included charities and the appellees. Like the included charities, the appellees are charitable organizations within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (1976). It is also undisputed that the appellees are not engaged in political activities which are inconsistent with this charitable status. See generally id.; 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3) (1983). Equally clear is the fact that the appellees and the included charities share the traits that have traditionally been considered critical in determining eligibility for the CFC: all provide and support "direct health and welfare services."
In NAACP I, the court held that an attempt to exclude two of the appellees from the CFC on the ground that they did not provide "direct services" was constitutionally infirm. By the same token, it cannot seriously be argued that the appellees do not "provide or support direct health and welfare services to individuals or their families" within the meaning of Executive Order 12,404. The appellees provide and support such services by furnishing legal assistance, by seeking judicial enforcement of the common law, statutory and constitutional rights of their clients, and by obtaining health and welfare benefits for the needy. Indeed, because the Government has included groups such as the National Parks and Conservation Association, the United States Olympic Committee, the Wilderness Society and the National Recreation and Park Association in the CFC, see Memorandum from Donald J. Devine to Chairmen and Chairwomen, Federal Coordinating Committees, National Voluntary Agencies, and Federated Groups 4 (Aug. 20, 1982), reprinted in II J.A. 551, a strong argument can be made that the appellees more closely comport with the standard established by the Government than do some of the included charities. In short, both in terms of their longstanding treatment under the tax code, and the parameters of the CFC as it has traditionally been understood, the status of the appellees and the included charities is virtually identical.
The Government's decision in 1983 to add an exclusionary clause to bar LDFs from the CFC obviously does not affect this conclusion. If the LDFs are generally of the type included in the campaign—and the preceding analysis indicates that they are— the Government cannot simply manufacture a difference in status by adding a specific exclusionary clause. Were this not the case, any charity could gain a "different" status from the others—regardless of their substantive similarities—for each is susceptible to categorization within a class of charities (e.g., organizations providing food aid; organizations studying cancer) that could be targeted for exclusion by the Government.
The similarities between the appellees and the included charities make the Government's differential access policy in this case far more troublesome than the policy considered in Perry. By permitting hundreds of charities to solicit through the CFC, the Government has plainly evidenced its view that such solicitation is not antagonistic to its interests nor inconsistent with the normal activities in the Federal workplace. On the contrary, it is clear that the Government views this charitable solicitation as highly worthwhile. Nevertheless, the Government has also chosen to forbid the same solicitations by similarly situated charities. Such differential treatment of like entities raises the serious possibility that a speaker, or class of speakers, has been excluded from a forum, not in furtherance of a legitimate interest of the Government, but instead simply because the speaker has been viewed disfavorably by the Government. Cf. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle in the First Amendment, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 20, 36-41 (1975) (discussing "hidden" techniques for content discrimination in public forums).
The factual distinction between this case and Perry therefore makes it essential that we examine with some care the Government's claim that its differential access policy satisfies the requirement of reasonableness established by Perry. In assessing the reasonableness of differential treatment of similarly situated speakers, we must consider whether the Government's discriminatory policy is related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate Government interest, and whether the asserted interest adequately explains why some speakers have been permitted access, while others have been denied it. We must also be circumspect in evaluating conclusory statements by Government officials which do not comport with either the evidence in the record or common sense. In undertaking this review, we emphasize the narrow scope of our holding: the inquiry that we have delineated is demanded by the similarities between the included and excluded charities in this case; we in no way suggest that this inquiry is appropriate in situations, such as that reviewed in Perry, which involve differential treatment of speakers who are not similarly situated.
C. The Unreasonableness of Excluding LDFs From the CFC
One point that is noteworthy about the Government's opposition to the inclusion of LDFs in the CFC is that the official explanations for this opposition have vacillated substantially over the past three years. Although this vacillation may be cause for suspicion, we nonetheless have accepted the various explanations at face value and have carefully considered each asserted justification for the Government's differential treatment of similarly situated charities in this case. Pursuant to this examination, we conclude that none of the Government's explanations satisfy the reasonableness test explicated in Perry.
1. Assistance to the Needy
The justification most consistently offered by the Government is its claim that exclusion of LDFs is a critical means of restricting participation in the CFC to "those charities which assist those who are most in need." Appellant's brief, p. 32. However, the appellant's suggestion that access to the CFC is somehow restricted to organizations whose programs "are aimed directly at the needs of the poor, the infirm, the hungry, and the truly needy," Office of Personnel Management News Release 1 (Feb. 10, 1983), reprinted in I J.A. 25, is patently ludicrous in view of the wide range of organizations included in the CFC. Although the programs of organizations like the United States Olympic Committee may be laudable, the Government certainly cannot explain the inclusion of such organizations and the exclusion of LDFs on this ground. Indeed, in defending Executive Order 12,404, the appellant told a congressional committee that "sports associations" and "recreation societies" had never been considered appropriate for inclusion in the CFC because "they were not engaged in supplying health and welfare services directly to human beings who were ill, infirm, poor, or distressed." Devine testimony, supra, at 30-31, reprinted in II J.A. 398-99.
In contrast to the activities of some organizations that the appellant ultimately did include in the CFC, the undisputed evidence in the record reveals that as a result of the NAACP LDF's litigation efforts, primarily on behalf of low income blacks, "hundreds of thousands of persons have received direct benefits, such as income supplementation in the form of back pay and future earnings, better educations, improved health care, better housing and other living conditions, humane conditions of incarceration and, in the ease of our capital punishment program, life itself." Affidavit of Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel of the NAACP LDF 6 (Nov. 25,1980), reprinted in I J.A. 130.
2. Political Advocacy
The appellant has also argued that exclusion of LDFs from the CFC is necessary because they are political advocacy groups, and the Government has a legitimate interest in avoiding the appearance of Federal support for such groups. Appellant's brief, p. 36. While we agree that this is a legitimate interest, it is not advanced by excluding LDFs from the CFC. As we have indicated, LDFs are not considered political action groups under the tax code. By providing tax exemptions to such organizations the Government has already resolved any questions concerning allegations of political advocacy by the LDFs. There is no indication that the Government ever saw a need to deviate from the tax code definition prior to the issuance of Executive Order 12,404— to the contrary, the regulations preceding Executive Order 12,404 expressly adopted the tax code's definition of a political action group. See 5 C.F.R. § 950.101(a)(2) (1983) (limiting eligible charities to those that "[a]re not 'action' organizations within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3) and are eligible to receive tax deductible contributions under 26 U.S.C. 170").
In fact, at no point in these proceedings, or in the documents included in the record, has the appellant provided a plausible explanation of why LDFs are properly characterized as political advocacy groups. The only distinction proffered by the Government between legal aid societies (which are included in the CFC) and LDFs is that the LDFs "are selective of clients on the basis of whether or not they have a cause, claim, or defense" that the LDF wishes to advance, Affidavit of Joseph A. Morris, General Counsel of the OPM 3 (Apr. 12, 1983), reprinted in II J.A. 433. But this surely cannot be the basis for considering LDFs political advocacy groups. While the participating charities—as well as the LDFs— share the common trait of providing health and welfare services, many of these organizations have chosen to focus on a particular facet of this extensive area. Whether this focus is on a particular group {e.g., war veterans) or a particular need (e.g., housing), this decision obviously does not turn a group into a political advocacy organization.
As the inclusion of legal aid societies in the CFC demonstrates, the fact that a group undertakes litigation seeking judicial enforcement of common law, statutory, and constitutional rights also does not make its activities impermissibly political. We think it equally clear that an organization's view that it can aid the greatest number of individuals by pursuing relief for a class of individuals cannot be said to "politicize" its activities. See generally Affidavit of M.D. Taracido, President of PR LDF 2 (Nov. 25, 1980), reprinted in II J.A. 310 ("[I]t has been the judgment of PRLDEF that, with only six full time staff attorneys, its efforts would serve and benefit a far greater number of people through the vehicle of class action litigation than by litigation solely on behalf of individuals."). Moreover, because both legal aid societies and LDFs typically litigate individual actions and class actions, this consideration would not justify including the former in the CFC while excluding the latter.
Inevitably, many of the charities participating in the CFC will have identifiable philosophies. Nevertheless, as their treatment in the tax code demonstrates, this is neither inherently inconsistent with their charitable status nor does it invariably require that the Government deny them access to any Government facility. Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981) (use of university facilities by student religious group); U.S. Southwest Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. United States, 708 F.2d 760, 771-72 (D.C.Cir.1983) (political advertisements at public airport did not create appearance of Government support for, or endorsement of, the message advertised).
3. The Claim That LDF Participation Would Be Controversial
We next consider the appellant's claim that LDFs were excluded from the CFC because their participation was controversial. In his October 1981 memorandum, Dr. Devine revealed his staunch opposition to LDFs before there was any suggestion that their participation in the CFC might prove controversial. His more recent explanations for their exclusion have emphasized the need to minimize controversy. He argues that many employees opposed their participation in the 1981 and 1982 campaigns, and that individuals and unions threatened to—and did in fact—boycott the CFC.
The appellant's suggestion that LDFs were excluded from the CFC to pacify protesting employees is an extremely disturbing notion when considered in the light of First Amendment protections. The growth of our nation has not been accomplished by suppressing ideas or speakers that we find distasteful. See Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 166, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 1458, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945) (Murphy, J., concurring). To allow the intolerance (and threats) of a vocal minority (or even the majority) to determine who shall and shall not speak "would lead to standardization of ideas," Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), and would "fictionaliz[e] the rationale of the First Amendment." Note, Constitutional Law—Free Speech and the Hostile Audience, 26 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 489, 491 (1951) (footnote omitted). See also West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1185, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) ("The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."). This concern has long been reflected in our jurisprudence, and we have been loath to prohibit speech "merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 1366, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 (1969). Indeed, the Supreme Court has observed that "[t]he right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is . one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes." Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4, 69 S.Ct. at 895 (emphasis added).
For the reasons we have already expounded, opposition to including LDFs in the CFC cannot be explained by relevant differences between LDFs and the charities included in the campaign. Nor has the opposition been aroused by the inflammatory nature of the LDFs' speech. Whittled to its core, the appellant's argument therefore is simply that when some ill-defined faction in an audience threatens to withhold charitable contributions for any reason, this threat of withholding is sufficient justification for suppression of speech. History unmistakably informs us that the principal victim of this type of censorship is the unpopular minority—be it religious, racial, political, or some other. See McGaffey, The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination, 57 Marq. L.Rev. 39, 39 (1973).
Allowing such considerations to become the touchstone for regulating First Amendment speech leaves First Amendment liberties subject to the whim of the listener. It also provides Government officials .hostile to the interests of a speaker a ready excuse for restricting these liberties. The Supreme Court has said in another context that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). Much the same can be said of attempts to identify the "controversial" speaker—what is controversial to some, may seem perfectly natural to others. Is the Government to determine which speakers are unacceptably controversial by counting letters of protestation, or should its unverified suspicion that a speaker will cause "ill feelings" between workers suffice? See appellant's brief, p. 36. Earlier litigation involving the CFC, in which Director Devine was ultimately required to include Planned Parenthood in the CFC, starkly illustrates the danger entailed by blithe acceptance of such Government determinations:
Throughout the prolonged investigation of Planned Parenthood, defendant has stated no specific reason for the extra attention now focused on this agency, aside from the suggestions, without noted evidence supporting them, that financial problems exist and that this is a "controversial" agency. At the eligibility hearing on September 2 defendant stated his own views of Planned Parenthood as follows:
Everyone knows where I [Director Devine] stand in regard to the kind of practices that Planned Parenthood does. You promote abortions; I think that's detestible (sic). I think in a just world you'd have nothing to do with a charitable drive.
Indeed, the controversial nature of this organization and the vocal opposition of pro-life groups appear to be either the primary factor delaying a decision, or a paramount consideration in that delayed decision.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Devine, No. 83-2118, order at 3-4 (D.D.C. Sept. 14,1983) (order providing that if defendant failed to issue a decision with cogent reasons resolving application of plaintiff by 3:00 p.m. on September 14, plaintiff would automatically be approved for participation in the CFC).
These considerations compel us, at a minimum, to examine very carefully the appellant's suggestion that a differential access policy for the CFC is justified by the Government's interest in excluding so-called controversial groups. Because this examination reveals the frailty of the appellant's claim on the facts of this case, we need not go as far as the lower court and decide whether the controversial nature of a speaker is in all cases an impermissible basis for restricting speech on public property.
In evaluating the appellant's claim, we again emphasize that this appeal involves only that portion of the CFC in which employees choose to designate their contributions to specific charities. The Govern ment's role in the CFC facilitates a broad and informed choice by employees interested in making charitable contributions. As long as it is the employees that ultimately decide who they will support, the addition of brief statements by LDFs to a leaflet that already includes hundreds of statements should not engender significant protest.
It should also be understood that the access sought in this case is quite unlike that examined by the Supreme Court in Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 96 S.Ct. 1211, 47 L.Ed.2d 505 (1976). In Greer, the Court had to consider the lawfulness of a military authority's decision to prevent certain Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from making speeches, and other plaintiffs from distributing literature, on a military reservation. In upholding the regulation on which the latter prohibition was based, the Court said that:
[I]t is to be emphasized that [the regulation] does not authorize the Fort Dix authorities to prohibit the distribution of conventional political campaign literature. The only publications that a military commander may disapprove are those that he finds constitute "a clear danger to [military] loyalty, discipline, or morale," and he "may not prevent distribution of a publication simply because he does not like its contents," or because it "is critical—even unfairly critical—of government policies or officials . "
Id. at 840, 96 S.Ct. at 1218 (footnote omitted). Justice Powell's concurrence further explained that "[although the recruits [on the reservation] may be exposed through the media and, perhaps, the mail to all views in civilian circulation, face-to-face persuasion by someone who urges, say, refusal to obey a superior officer's command, has an immediacy and impact not found in reading papers and watching television." Id. at 849, 96 S.Ct. at 1223 (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added).
In the instant case, there is no plausible reason to suspect that the limited and unobtrusive communications at issue will in any way interfere with the normal activities in the workplace. Workers frequently have some exposure to ideas that may prove controversial, but their normal reaction certainly is not to discontinue the work they are being paid to perform. Should they do so, they can be reprimanded or otherwise disciplined. Absent any tangible evidence in the record suggesting that some real and serious disruptions of the workplace will likely occur, we are unwilling to defer to the fanciful—and somewhat specious—speculations offered by the appellant.
Nor are we persuaded by the appellant's suggestion that inclusion of LDFs imperils the fund-raising purposes of the CFC. Although some unions protested the inclusion of one particular LDF in the campaign, the record indicates that these unions encouraged members either to simply designate the charities they wished to support, see Statement of AFL-CIO Executive Council 2 (Aug. 4,1982), reprinted in I J.A. 97, or to "give directly to causes that we have traditionally supported and that have supported us." Letter from International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to Grand Lodge Representatives, et a 1. (Ang. 18, 1982), reprinted in I J.A. 93 (emphasis added). Moreover, as long as all employees are permitted to choose which groups they will contribute to, providing employees a broad range of groups to choose among may encourage, rather than discourage, employee contributions. The undisputed evidence in the record reveals that substantial numbers of employees chose to contribute to LDFs, see, e.g., Affidavit of Emanuel Owens, Coordinator of NAACP LDF's Combined Federal Campaign 8-9 (Mar. 1983), reprinted in II J.A. 302-03 (indicating that NAACP LDF received at least $170,000 through CFC in 1981-82); Report of Capital Area CFC (Mar. 2, 1983), reprinted in I J.A. 105 (indicating that among the 41 national service agencies listed, the Sierra Club LDF received the fourth highest percentage of designated contributions, and the NAACP LDF received the seventh highest), and that there was a 3.8% increase in funds raised by the 1982 CFC, Affidavit of P. Kent Bailey, Program Analyst, OPM 2 (June 30, 1983), reprinted in II J.A. 553, in spite of the "declining [size of the] federal work force." Letter from Jack Greenberg to President Reagan 1 (Jan. 11, 1983), reprinted in I J.A. 101.
Hence, the record does not support the appellant's claim that the Government acted reasonably in excluding LDFs from the campaign to appease employees opposed to their inclusion. It should also be noted that the appellant's protestations of concern about controversial eligibility decisions is tellingly rebutted by his treatment of charities providing family planning services. As we have indicated, the appellant resisted inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the campaign, ostensibly on the ground that its participation was controversial. However, participation by the Moral Majority Foundation, Inc., was allowed even though its activities include providing educational services with respect to abortion counseling. One can hardly envision decisions more likely to lead to outcries of "politicization" and demands for boycotts of the campaign. The Government cannot simply "pick and choose" its controversies as a means to restrict speech by those it views disfavorably. On the facts of this case, the appellant's claim—that the alleged controversial nature of LDFs justifies denying them the same opportunity to communicate permitted similarly situated charities—must be rejected as wholly unreasonable.
4. Restricted Access to Avoid Undue Burdens on the CFC
The final rationale asserted by the appellant is the need to avoid innundation of the CFC. Absent some reasonable distinction between LDFs and the included charities, however, this consideration cannot possibly justify the Government's differential access policy. If the Government is required to limit the access of charities that it cannot meaningfully distinguish, it must allocate spots in the CFC between these charities in some even-handed manner, see, e.g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2565, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981) ("first-come, first-served system"), rather than arbitrarily identifying LDFs for exclusion. Additionally, the appellant has recently acknowledged that this Government interest is not furthered in any noticeable way by exclusion of LDFs:
I do not suspect that many groups that are presently eligible for the campaign would not be eligible under our proposal.... [TJhere will be very little impact in terms of numbers on those eligible.... It is going to have an impact [on the number of charities], but in terms, let's say, of 500 in the Washington, D.C. area, we may be talking about ten or something like that, and in terms of percentage in it would be very small.
Devine testimony, supra, at 44-45, reprinted in II J.A. 412-13.
5. Alternative Forums
Finally, we need not consider at great length any claims made regarding the alleged availability of alternative forums to the appellees. In a society that cherishes freedom to speak, deprivation of a particular forum typically will not leave the speaker without any opportunity to communicate. It is therefore not surprising that the availability of alternative forums has never been considered to justify Government attempts to "pick and choose" among preferred speakers. To allow such a justification would be to nullify important rights of free speech.
The LDFs have every right to seek access to the CFC once the Government makes the forum available to other like charities and offers no reasonable explanation for the exclusion of LDFs. It is hardly surprising that the LDFs have challenged their exclusion from the CFC. Effective charitable solicitation depends on economical and efficient means to communicate one's message to mass audiences. The CFC is the exclusive forum for charitable solicitation in the Federal workplace, and the undisputed evidence in the record indicates that it is a critical medium for making charitable appeals to Federal employees.
The principal point here, however, is not that the CFC is an effective forum for solicitation; the same result that we reach today would hold even if it could be shown that the CFC produced relatively little by way of contributions for LDFs. The principal point in this case is that, in the absence of any reasonable ground for making the CFC forum available to charities like LDFs but not to LDFs, the restriction challenged by the appellees violates the First Amendment.
A Postscript in Response to the Dissent
In affirming the District Court's opinion, we have been guided by a fundamental, yet hardly earthshaking, proposition: the First Amendment does not permit the Government to differentiate between similarly situated speakers in regulating speech on public property, unless there is some reasonable basis for this differentiation. This limitation on the Government's right to discriminate unjustifiably between like speakers, in no way imperils the Government's power to insist reasonably on order within its facilities. It is simply a recognition that a free society neither requires, nor countenances, the creation of vast enclaves in which one is permitted to speak only at the fancy of the Government.
The dissent obviously takes a very different view of the First Amendment. It proclaims that the Amendment is the "basic bulwark of our liberty," but proceeds to make a mockery of this declaration by advocating a "test" which arbitrarily and unreasonably removes the workplaces of millions of Americans from the Amendment's protection. We need not respond at length to the views expressed in this dissent. For the most part, it is sufficient for us simply to note that the test it advocates completely disregards any value of the First Amendment, and the "facts" it analyzes are totally removed from those actually before us.
The dissent begins—as it must—by acknowledging that Perry requires that distinctions between speakers in "nonpublic forums" be reasonable. See Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 957, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). See also United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114, 131 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 2676, 2686 n. 7, 69 L.Ed.2d 517 (1981). It then inexplicably ignores its own words by applying a rational basis test. Although the dissent does not deem it necessary to explain what this does require the Government to establish, it is quite emphatic in its enumeration of what is not required of the Government:
(1) the Government's distinction need not further a significant Government interest (Dissenting Opinion at 1274);
(2) the Government need not produce any evidence that the asserted interest will be advanced (Dissenting Opinion at 1275);
(3) a Government prohibition of otherwise protected speech is justified when it is in response to the protestations of potential listeners (Dissenting Opinion at 1277-1280);
(4) the existence of less restrictive means to advance the Government's interest is irrelevant (Dissenting Opinion at 1275); and
(5) the fact that the Government is motivated by a desire to suppress a speaker, or even a speaker's view, is irrelevant if the Government can point to some rational basis for its treatment of the speaker (Dissenting Opinion at 1281 n. 48).
This is an extraordinary view of the protection afforded by the "basic bulwark of our liberty." The word "reasonable," as used by the Supreme Court in Perry, has been rendered meaningless by the dissent. We do not have the slightest doubt that any Government restriction on speech would survive scrutiny under the so-called deferential test enunciated by the dissent. Indeed, the dissent seems to embrace a notion that any Government prohibition of First Amendment activity is by definition rational because it is an act of the Government. In advocating such an approach, the dissent has simply chosen to ignore the clear teachings of Perry.
The dissent's defense of the Government's differential access policy is predicated on its unquestioning acceptance of the Government's characterization of this policy. The dissent repeatedly labels the charities included in the CFC as noncontroversial, "traditional charities," while labeling the excluded LDFs as "political advocacy groups"; it therefore has little trouble finding a rational basis for the Government's policy. This is a gross oversimplification of the policy that is really at issue in this case, and disregards the undisputed facts about the organizations that actually participate in the campaign.
By acquiescing in the Government's abstractions, the dissent offers no explanations for the real distinctions that are being made by the Government. The dissent does not tell us why LDFs can reasonably be considered "advocacy" groups, while legal aid societies are not. It does not tell us why affording employees an opportunity to contribute to LDFs is unacceptably controversial, while differential treatment of groups providing abortion counseling is not. Nor does it explain how the sports and recreation societies—which Dr. Devine said have no place in a charity drive—better provide for the essential needs of the hungry, sick and ignorant, than organizations dedicated to the protection of basic legal rights.
Content to rely on Dr. Devine's self-serving and inaccurate characterizations of the CFC, the dissent proceeds to consider whether a justification can be found for treating "traditional charities" differently than "advocacy groups." Given the tenuity of the test it employs, one should not be surprised to find the dissent persuaded by every justification raised by the Government during its three year effort to exorcise LDFs from the CFC. Even more revealing is the dissent's unqualified acceptance of justifications that either were not even mentioned by the Government until this litigation was commenced or were expressly repudiated by the Government.
We have already elucidated the obvious shortcomings in these justifications; some final observations are now in order. First, the dissent's consistent references to LDFs as "political advocacy groups" implies a difference between the activities of LDFs and other charities that simply ignores reality. See Devine testimony, supra, at 52, 53, reprinted in II J.A. 420, 421 (arguing that it is "perfectly appropriate" for charities to "lobby or otherwise present their views on issues that relate to their interests"). Even the dissent appears uncomfortable with the implication that "real" charities transcend advocacy, since it makes no serious attempt to argue that "political advocacy" is even a rational basis for distinguishing LDFs from the charities included in the CFC. Instead, the dissent unconvincingly attempts to salvage its position by asserting that the Government will appear less political if LDFs are excluded. The Supreme Court's "nonpublic forum" cases have never suggested that restrictions on nonpolitical speech can be justified by the baseless complaints of some listeners that the Government is being political. We can only express our amazement at the dissent's claim that unreasonable distinctions between speakers—imposed simply to appease protesting listeners—will somehow make the Government seem less political.
The dissent's discussion of the "controversial nature" of LDFs is equally disturbing. The dissent conveniently ignores the fact that only designated contributions are at issue in this case. It does not explain why affording employees the opportunity to contribute to LDFs will prove as "controversial" as the possibility that employees might unwittingly support them through undesignated contributions. Even more fundamentally, the dissent's discussion reveals its willingness to allow the reaction of an audience—no matter how unworthy its basis —to define the scope of First Amendment activity. Whether the cause of this reaction be racial hatred, religious bigotry, or otherwise, in the dissent's view the Government acts wisely when it responds by silencing the speaker.
Nothing more need be said of this dissenting opinion. The dissent has simply attempted—by advocating an astonishingly narrow construction of the First Amendment and by refusing even to question the Government's assertions of interest in this case—to make the First Amendment a nullity in that part of the public domain that it considers the "nonpublic forum." The Constitution does not envision such pockets of tyranny, and we unqualifiedly repudiate the dissent's attempt to create them.
Conclusion
Although the Government has substantial latitude in regulating speech on property falling within the third category delineated in Perry, this regulation cannot discriminate between speakers absent some reasonable justification for doing so. In this case, the Government has permitted hundreds of charities to make unobtusive appeals to Federal employees through the CFC, and has thereby facilitated its employees' awareness of a broad range of options for their charitable support. Our review of the multifarious and shifting explanations advanced by the appellant reveals no reasonable basis for denying the appellees the same opportunity. Instead, it most strikingly reveals the appellant's steadfast desire to find some way to exclude LDFs, while including charities that he viewed more favorably. The First Amendment does not tolerate discrimination of this sort by the Government.
Judge Wright is in complete agreement with this opinion, but would reach the issue that we find unnecessary to decide: whether the CFC constitutes a limited public forum. He would hold that it does, and would affirm the District Court's decision because the applicable First Amendment requirements have not been satisfied.
The District Court's decision is affirmed. As ordered by the District Court, the appellant, his agents and subordinates, are permanently enjoined from excluding the appellees from participation in the Combined Federal Campaign with respect to the solicitation of designated contributions on the basis of the provisions of section 2(b)(1 through 3) of Executive Order 12,353, as amended by section 1(b) of Executive Order 12,404.
So ordered.
. The other appellees in this action are: The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; Federally Employed Women Legal and Education Fund, Inc.; Indian Law Resources Center; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
. The appellant's brief indicates that PCFOs "prepare, print, and supply the contributor's leaflet." Appellant's brief, p. 12. It also acknowledges that participating charities will sometimes "provide a draft statement for inclusion in the leaflet," id. at 26, and indicates the appellant's "understanding that Federal officials managing local campaigns often approve the draft descriptive statements as they are submitted." Id. at 27 n. 21. It does not challenge the appellees' contention that "it is the participating charities that in reality draft their descriptions for the fundraising brochure." Appellees' brief, p. 10 (footnote omitted).
. The "direct services" eligibility requirement was formalized in a Government manual which specified the procedures governing the CFC. Appellant's brief, p. 6.
. The court independently held that the "direct services" requirement had substantially narrowed Executive Order 10,927 and, absent evidence that it was appropriate to exclude groups providing " 'indirect services' or [operating] along general class lines," imposition of such a limitation was arbitrary and capricious. 504 F.Supp. at 1368.
. "National voluntary health and welfare agencies and such other national voluntary agencies as may be appropriate" was defined to include national agencies that:
(2) Are not "action" organizations within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3) and are eligible to receive tax deductible contributions under 26 U.S.C. 170; and
(3) Provide or substantially support one or more of the following services:
(vii) Delivery of legal services to the poor and indigent, and defense of human and civil rights secured by law .
5 C.F.R. § 950.101(a)(2), (3)(vii) (1983).
. One of the major objections to the new regulations, when originally proposed in May 1982, see 47 Fed.Reg. 20,268 (1982) (to be codified at 5 C.F.R. § 950) (proposed May 11, 1982), had been that charitable organizations that serve women and minorities would be ineligible for the CFC because of criteria requiring that organizations "provide direct and substantial service throughout the country and in specific CFC locations." 47 Fed.Reg. 29,496 (1982). In the preamble to the final regulations the appellant indicated that objections regarding the eligibility of "legal defense, minority, and women's organizations" had persuaded OPM that some of its earlier criteria had been "overly restrictive," and consequently it had "modified both the general eligibility requirements and the direct and substantial presence criterion to meet most of the germane objections." Id. at 29,497.
. The objectives of the Combined Federal Campaign are to lessen the burdens of government and of local communities in meeting needs of human health and welfare; to provide a convenient channel through which Federal public servants may contribute to these efforts; to minimize or eliminate disruption of the Federal workplace and costs to Federal taxpayers that such fund-raising may entail; and to avoid the reality and appearance of the use of Federal resources in aid of fund-raising for political activity or advocacy of public policy, lobbying, or philanthropy of any kind that does not directly serve needs of human health and welfare.
Exec. Order No. 12,404, § 1(b), 48 Fed.Reg. 6,685 (1983).
. To meet these objectives, eligibility for participation in the Combined Federal Campaign shall be limited to voluntary, charitable, health and welfare agencies that provide or support direct health and welfare services to individuals or their families. Such direct health and welfare services must be available to Federal employees in the local campaign solicitation area, unless they are rendered to needy persons overseas. Such services must directly benefit human beings, whether children, youth, adults, the aged, the ill and infirm, or the mentally or physically handicapped. Such services must consist of care, research or education in the fields of human health or social adjustment and rehabilitation; relief of victims of natural disasters and other emergencies; or assistance to those who are impoverished and therefore in need of food, shelter, clothing, education, and basic human welfare services.
Id.
. In NAACP II, 560 F.Supp. 667 (D.D.C.1983), the court held that denying two LDFs access to the undesignated funds raised in the CFC violated neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment.
. "[T]he written message in the CFC pamphlets . advances protected speech and associational interests." 667 F.2d at 178. See also NAACP I, 504 F.Supp. at 1367 ("by providing organizations the opportunity to participate in the CFC, the government has, in effect, provided a billboard or channel of communication through which organizations can disseminate their appeals to federal workers. This process has proven extremely effective in raising charitable contributions. It is clear that the government must meet First Amendment strictures in its regulations concerning access to this channel of communication, which is, in fact, the only channel by which organizations can appeal to government employees at their workplace."); National Black United Fund, Inc. v. Campbell, 494 F.Supp. 748, 755 (D.D.C.1980) ("Through the Combined Federal Campaign the government has afforded a forum and platform where national voluntary agencies may advance their causes before federal employees and solicit for financial contributions. . . Viewed in light of recent rulings there can be little dispute that the Combined Campaign involves First Amendment activities . "), rev'd on other grounds, 667 F.2d 173 (D.C.Cir.1981).
. There is some question about whether the forum in this case is the Federal workplace or the CFC itself. Although the appellant's argument that the workplace is the forum finds some support in U.S. Southwest Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. United States, 708 F.2d 760 (D.C.Cir.1983), the Supreme Court's analysis of school mail box facilities as a forum, see Perry, 103 S.Ct. at 955—as opposed to the school itself—suggests that the CFC is the relevant forum. Although we therefore will refer to the CFC as the forum at issue, this differentiation has little impact on our analysis because we assume, without deciding, that the forum is within Perry's third category. In assessing the reasonableness of restrictions in such a forum, it is proper to consider Government interests in preventing disruption of the environment in which the forum is located—in this case, the Federal workplace. See id. at 959 (Government could restrict access to school mail facilities to "insur[e] labor-peace within the schools").
. Because we find that the Government's exclusion of LDFs is unreasonable, we need not address the appellees' argument that such exclusion is a viewpoint-based regulation.
. The affidavits in the record provided by representatives of the other appellees in this action are replete with descriptions and illustrations of their efforts to obtain judicial enforcement of laws designed to protect and aid the needy, as well as laws protecting the health of society by promoting a clean environment.
. The appellant has wisely chosen not to press the suggestion that exclusion of controversial groups is necessary to protect a captive audience. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., -U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 2883, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983) ("we have never held that the government itself can shut off the flow of mailings to protect those recipients who might potentially be offended.... Recipients of objectionable mailings . . may 'effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.' Consequently, the 'short, though regular, journey from mail box to trash can . is an acceptable burden, at least so far as the Constitution is concerned.' ") (citations omitted); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 542, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 2336, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980); U.S. Southwest Africa/Namibia Trade & Cultural Council v. United States, 708 F.2d 760, 767 (D.C.Cir.1983).
. For discussions of the First Amendment problems raised by the hostile audience, see H. Kalven, The Negro and the First Amendment 140-60 (1965); McGaffey, The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination, 57 Marq.L.Rev. 39 (1973); Note, Freedom of Speech and Assembly: The Problem of the Hostile Audience, 49 Colum.L. Rev 1118 (1949); Note, Hostile-Audience Confrontations: Police Conduct and First Amendment Rights, 75 Mich.L.Rev 180 (1976).
. In Perry, the Supreme Court recognized that disruption of the workplace would be highly likely if an employer was required to allow a rival union access to the school mail system so that it could challenge a lawfully certified union. Not only would the rival status of the unions create serious problems, but the continuing presence in the workplace of an unrecognized union would be wholly at odds with the system of "exclusive representation" that is uniformly recognized in collective bargaining in this country.
There are no such plausible assertions that may be advanced in the instant case. Not only does the record fail to support the suggestion that work was disrupted when LDFs participated in the CFC in 1981 and 1982, the fear of such disruption is completely counterintuitive. Assertions of workplace disruption resulting from First Amendment activities can often be made, and almost inevitably will be made when speech critical of the Government is involved. Cass, First Amendment Access to Government Facilities, 65 Va.L.Rev. 1287, 1334 (1979). Unquestioning acceptance of such arguments would turn "workplace disruption" into "a shibboleth, the mere recitation of which dictates constitutionality." Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 690, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 1772, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973) (discussing assertions of "administrative inconvenience").
. The appellant's suggestion that the inclusion of controversial groups necessitated "extraordinary exertions" by Federal officials conducting the CFC, is wholly unpersuasive as a justification for excluding LDFs. Generally, Federal employees are only encouraged to participate actively in the work of voluntary agencies in the CFC "to the extent consistent with Federal agency policy and prudent use of official time," 5 C.F.R. § 950.105 (1983), although one or more Federal executives may be "loaned" to work on a local CFC. Id. § 950.509(k). The appellant has not claimed that the controversial nature of the CFC required additional personnel to be assigned to its management, nor has he made any attempt to provide even the roughest approximation of the extra efforts which allegedly were required.
In fact, the record indisputably indicates that the concern raised by the appellant is merely a post hoc rationalization for the exclusion of LDFs. Although in the proceedings below the appellant's briefings made some vague references to "workplace disruption," it was never suggested that the efforts required of Federal personnel justified exclusion of LDFs, or that they played any part in the Government's decision to exclude LDFs. Similarly, neither the appellant's February 1983 memorandum, nor his subsequent testimony, even argue that the alleged extra efforts required by the inclusion of LDFs were so substantial that they justified exclusion of LDFs. The only evidence cited in the appellant's argument on this point on appeal, is a statement in the preamble to new regulations proposed in June 1983, see 48 Fed. Reg. 29,458 (1983)—a statement made by OPM well after this litigation had been commenced.
. The appellees' brief indicates that the Moral Majority Foundation was included in the 1983 campaign, appellees' brief, p. 40 n. 72; see also 1984 Combined Federal Campaign of the National Capital Area, 1984 Combined Federal Campaign Agency Listing 2 (1983), and this point has never been challenged by the appellant. It was raised at oral argument and again was not disputed.
. See, e.g., Affidavit of Jonathan Lash, Staff Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council 4 (Mar. 29, 1983), reprinted in II J.A. 336 ("If NRDC was excluded from future Combined Federal Campaigns, it will be extremely difficult for us to reach the federal employee audience, and because of the costs of direct mail, a much greater proportion of revenue will have to go to fund raising activities, with the result that a smaller proportion of the organization's resources will be used for its program.").
. This is tellingly evidenced by the dissent's characterization of a letter which warns of "groups that stir up negative feelings because of religious . affiliation," as "containfing] much wisdom." Dissenting Opinion at 1279 n. 35. See Letter from Sidney M. Ford to Donald Devine (Jan. 12, 1983), II J.A. 487, reprinted in Dissenting Opinion at Addendum B.
. The appellant's objections to the District Court's order are frivolous and merit only a brief response. As the Government has chosen to impose time, place, and manner requirements dictating that charitable solicitation in Federal facilities be conducted through the CFC, and it is only the unreasonable exclusion from the CFC pursuant to Executive Order 12,-404 that is at issue in this appeal, it was completely appropriate for the District Court to enjoin exclusion from the CFC on the basis of the executive order as a remedy. The appellant's suggestion that the appellees should instead be permitted to make direct, personal appeals in the workplace, not only goes beyond what is at issue in this case, but is hopelessly inconsistent with the appellant's professed concerns about disruption and controversy in the workplace.