International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
764 F.3d 1044
9th Cir.2014Background
- ISKCON (a religious organization) challenged L.A. Admin. Code § 23.27(c), which banned continuous or repetitive solicitation and immediate receipt of funds in LAX terminals, parking areas, and adjacent sidewalks; the ban excluded mere literature distribution and only targeted immediate exchanges.
- LAX is a major international airport with severely reduced public terminal space post‑9/11; the City enforced the ordinance after state litigation resolved against ISKCON on California constitutional grounds.
- ISKCON practices sankirtan (in‑person proselytizing, literature distribution, and immediate fundraising) and seeks to solicit/donate/sell literature at terminal sidewalks, lobbies, and TBIT mezzanine; it contends the ban unduly restricts its religious expression and fundraising.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding LAX a nonpublic forum and § 23.27(c) a reasonable, viewpoint‑neutral restriction; this appeal challenged only the First Amendment reasonableness question.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the solicitation ban is reasonable in light of LAX’s purpose (facilitating safe, secure, efficient passenger movement) and affirmed, citing substantial interests in reducing congestion and preventing fraud/duress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 23.27(c) is a permissible restriction under the First Amendment in a nonpublic forum | ISKCON: the ban materially burdens protected religious speech and fundraising; it denies an essential fundraising method and leaves insufficient alternatives | City: LAX is a nonpublic forum; the ban is viewpoint neutral and reasonable to reduce congestion, fraud, and police distraction | Held: Reasonable and viewpoint neutral; affirmed summary judgment for City |
| Whether solicitation (and sale for immediate funds) is less protected and thus more regulable | ISKCON: fundraising is core expressive conduct essential to its mission | City: Immediate, repetitive solicitation presents special risks (congestion, fraud, coercion) that justify regulation | Held: Court recognized solicitation is protected but historically more regulable due to disruption and fraud risks |
| Whether § 23.27(c) is narrowly tailored or leaves adequate alternatives | ISKCON: ordinance eliminates primary, effective fundraising channel at LAX; alternatives (mail, online) are inadequate | City: Ordinance is limited (only immediate, continuous solicitation/sales) and leaves many channels (literature distribution, future‑donation solicitation, other venues) | Held: Under deferential nonpublic‑forum review, the restriction need only be reasonable; alternatives suffice |
| Whether post‑9/11 security/space changes affect the reasonableness analysis | ISKCON: historical precedents (Lee decisions) limit scope; sidewalks should remain available | City: Post‑9/11 terminal access is greatly reduced, increasing congestion and fraud risk even on sidewalks | Held: Post‑9/11 conditions strengthen City’s interests; Lee does not require sidewalks to be available and does not control result |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (upholding airport solicitation ban inside terminals as regulable due to congestion and fraud concerns)
- Lee v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 830 (1992) (per curiam decision addressing literature distribution issue)
- United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) (upholding solicitation restriction on federal property; solicitation considered disruptive)
- Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640 (1981) (upholding restrictions on solicitation locations at state fair to prevent disruption and fraud)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, manner test for content‑neutral restrictions in public fora)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (reasonableness standard for speech restrictions in nonpublic fora)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum‑based approach; reasonableness inquiry for nonpublic forum restrictions)
- Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness of Cal., Inc. v. City of L.A., 227 P.3d 395 (Cal. 2010) (California Supreme Court applying intermediate scrutiny and upholding § 23.27(c))
- ISKCON Miami, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 147 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 1998) (upholding airport solicitation/sale ban extending to sidewalks as reasonable in a nonpublic forum)
- The News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Raleigh‑Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2010) (invalidating total ban on newspaper racks; distinguished because racks cause trivial congestion and pose no fraud risk)