211 Cal. App. 4th 1322
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Redding Library outdoor areas were regulated by a Policy creating a limited outdoor public forum with a designated free speech area and restrictions on leafleting, solicitations, vehicle handbills, and language.
- The Policy required online reservations for the free speech area, limited areas for tables, and tied violations to the city’s municipal code.
- AT issue were TROs and preliminary injunctions: ACLU and Tea Party challenged the Policy and Handbill Ordinance as unconstitutional; trial court granted injunctions finding the outdoor area a public forum and the challenged provisions likely unconstitutional.
- Leafleting activities in September 2010 spurred adoption of the Policy; subsequent distribution outside the area led to warnings and enforcement attempts.
- The trial court concluded the parking-lot leafleting ban was valid, but the other restrictions were likely unconstitutional under intermediate or strict scrutiny, and the preliminary injunctions were issued accordingly.
- Appellate court modified the injunctions, striking overbroad provisions and affirming the rest as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Library’s outdoor area a public forum? | Tea Party/ACLU: Yes, akin to traditional public spaces open to expressive activity. | City: No; it is a limited/public forum or nonpublic space with restrictions. | Outdoor area is a public forum under California and federal tests. |
| Do the Policy’s solicitation and free-speech area restrictions meet intermediate scrutiny? | Restrictions are overly broad or not narrowly tailored to significant interests. | Restrictions are justified as time/place/manner limits addressing safety and order. | Solicitation ban not narrowly tailored; free-speech-area restriction not narrowly tailored. |
| Is the parking-lot leafleting ban narrowly tailored and justified? | Parking-lot ban helps curb congestion and safety concerns; Savage supports such restrictions. | Ban is valid safety/litter-control measure. | Parking-lot ban is not narrowly tailored; reversed as to this provision; struck. |
| Are the Handbill Ordinance provisions (vehicle handbills, identification, and certain content bans) constitutional and enforceable? | Provisions are overbroad or vague and chill speech. | Provisions regulate conduct consistent with evidence and public safety. | Vehicle-handbill ban and content-based bans were overbroad or unconstitutional; identification requirement upheld only to extent allowed; injunctions affirmed in part with modifications. |
| Did the reservation/permit mechanism for the free speech area violate First Amendment protections? | Advance reservations suppress spontaneous speech and anonymity. | Permitting system is a standard time/place/manner tool. | Reservation requirement rejected as overbroad; injunctions modified to strike reservation-related language. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 48 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2010) (upholds limited immediate-donation restriction; public forum analysis in CA)
- Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.4th 352 (Cal. 2000) (California liberty of speech broader; applies time/place/manner test)
- Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Bd., 42 Cal.4th 850 (Cal. 2007) (shopping mall as quasi-public space; public forum principles)
- Savage v. Trammell Crow Co., 223 Cal.App.3d 1562 (Cal. App. 1990) (parking-lot leafleting; safety/litter considerations; narrowly tailored)
- Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejected Klein’s narrower safety rationale; Savage retained for parking-lot context)
- Kokinda v. United States, 497 U.S. 720 (U.S. 1990) (distinguishes post office sidewalk from public forums; plurality view)
- Carreras v. Anaheim, 768 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1985) (public forum analysis for California public spaces; basic incompatibility approach)
- San Leandro Teachers Union v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist., 46 Cal.4th 822 (Cal. 2009) (public forum determination under CA constitution; explicit rejection of basic incompatibility)