468 U.S. 288 (1984)
In 1982, the Community for Creative Non-Violence, a group dedicated to eliminating homelessness, and several of its adherents applied to the National Park Service for a permit to erect a symbolic tent city in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, and on the Mall as part of a wintertime demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless.1
The Park Service issued a renewable permit authorizing the erection of 20 tents in Lafayette Park that would accommodate 50 people and 40 tents on the Mall with a capacity of up to 100 people.2 The Park Service specifically denied the request that demonstrators be permitted to sleep in the tents.3
Lafayette Park is a roughly 7-acre square located across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.4 It is a garden park with formal landscaping of flowers and trees, with fountains, walks and benches.5 The Mall is a stretch of land running westward from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial some two miles away.6 It includes the Washington Monument, a series of reflecting pools, trees, lawns, and other greenery.7
Both areas were included in Major Pierre L'Enfant's original plan for the Capital.8 They are visited by vast numbers of visitors from around the country, as well as by large numbers of residents of the Washington metropolitan area.9
Under the regulations involved in this case, camping in National Parks is permitted only in campgrounds designated for that purpose.10 No such campgrounds have ever been designated in Lafayette Park or the Mall.11 Camping is defined as the use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities, or making preparations to sleep, or storing personal belongings, or making any fire, or using any tents or other structure for sleeping or doing any digging or earth breaking or carrying on cooking activities.12 CCNV and several individuals filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Park Service, its Director, and the Secretary of the Interior, alleging that the regulations violated the First Amendment.13 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government.14 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed.15 The Supreme Court granted the Government's petition for certiorari.16
Whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in Lafayette Park and the Mall violates the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in symbolic tents as part of a demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless?17
The general rule is that expressive conduct is protected to the extent that it is intended to and does convey a particularized message.18 Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.19 The Park Service's regulations are content-neutral and are not being applied because of disagreement with the message presented by respondents' demonstration.20 The Government's substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, to the benefit of both visitors and residents, is beyond dispute.21 The regulations forbidding sleeping meet the requirements for a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of expression, since they are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's substantial interest in preserving the parks.22
Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly identified the First Amendment standard when it recognized that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration constitutes expressive conduct.23 The Park Service's regulations are content-neutral and are not being applied because of disagreement with the message presented by respondents' demonstration.
The Government's substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of the Capital in an attractive and intact condition, to the benefit of both visitors and residents, is beyond dispute. Lafayette Park and the Mall receive millions of visitors annually.24 They were designed as garden parks and memorial spaces rather than campgrounds.25 The regulations forbidding sleeping meet the requirements for a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of expression, since they are narrowly tailored to serve the Government's substantial interest in preserving the parks by prohibiting the use of park land for living accommodation purposes such as sleeping activities or using tents for sleeping.26 The sleeping prohibition is not unreasonable, even as applied to the symbolic sleeping by respondents, because the parks are not places of overnight camping and sleeping in the parks is not part of the conduct that the parks are designed to accommodate.27 The regulation otherwise left the demonstration intact, with its symbolic city, signs, and the presence of those who were willing to take their turns in a day-and-night vigil.28
The Park Service's regulations are valid under the First Amendment.29
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger concurred in the Court's opinion.30 He wrote separately to emphasize that nothing in the Court's opinion is inconsistent with the principle that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment.31 The regulation at issue here is a reasonable restriction on the time, place, and manner of expression.32
It does not target the content of the message that respondents seek to convey.33 Burger further observed that respondents' attempt at camping in the park is a form of picketing that is conduct, not speech, and that it interferes with the rights of others to use Lafayette Park for the purposes for which it was created.34
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the Court's decision today represents a serious departure from well-established First Amendment principles.35 Brennan maintained that the activity at issue here of sleeping as part of a political demonstration is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.36 The Court's conclusion that the Park Service's regulations are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions cannot withstand scrutiny.37
He concluded that the regulations are not narrowly tailored to serve the government's asserted interests because the interest in the appearance of the parks cannot justify the suppression of protected expression.38 The Court's decision allows the government to prohibit a particular means of expression simply because it finds the means unappealing or inconvenient. This is not consistent with the First Amendment.39
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Marshall dissented, contending that the Court's disposition of this case is marked by two related failings.40 The majority is either unwilling or unable to take seriously the First Amendment claims advanced by respondents.41 The majority misapplies the test for ascertaining whether a restraint on speech qualifies as a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation.42
Marshall argued that in light of the surrounding context, respondents' proposed activity meets the qualifications for symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.43 He concluded that the regulations fail the narrow-tailoring requirement because the majority cites no evidence indicating that sleeping engaged in as symbolic speech will cause substantial wear and tear on park property.44 The government's application of the sleeping ban in the circumstances of this case is strikingly underinclusive.45