407 U.S. 551 (1972)
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. owns and operates Lloyd Center, a large retail shopping center in Portland, Oregon, spanning about 50 acres with more than 60 commercial tenants, interior malls, parking facilities, and other amenities.1 The Center maintains a strictly enforced policy prohibiting the distribution of handbills within its building complex and malls, with no exceptions made for such activity.2
On November 14, 1968, five individuals including Donald Tanner, Betsy Wheeler, and Susan Roberts entered the Center's malls and began distributing handbills inviting the public to a meeting protesting the draft and the Vietnam war.3 The distribution was quiet, orderly, and produced no litter, though one customer complained.4 Security guards employed by Lloyd Center, who possess full police authority, informed the distributors that they were trespassing and would be arrested if they did not cease handbilling inside the Center, suggesting instead that they use the adjacent public streets and sidewalks.5
The five individuals left the premises to avoid arrest and continued their handbilling outside the Center.6 They subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Lloyd Corp. on the ground that the prohibition violated their constitutional rights.7
The District Court found that Lloyd Center was the functional equivalent of a public business district and held that the prohibition on handbilling violated the distributors' rights, issuing a permanent injunction.8 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this determination in a per curiam opinion.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.10
Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a privately owned shopping center to permit the distribution of handbills on its property when the handbilling is unrelated to the shopping center's operations?11
The First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private purposes only.12 The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect against deprivation of property without due process and taking of private property for public use without just compensation.13 Private property does not lose its character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes, and the Constitution does not require an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.14
No. Lloyd Corp. owns and operates Lloyd Center as private property spanning about 50 acres with more than 60 commercial tenants.15 It maintains a strictly enforced policy prohibiting the distribution of handbills within its building complex and malls.16 On November 14, 1968, the five individuals including Donald Tanner, Betsy Wheeler, and Susan Roberts entered the Center's malls and distributed handbills inviting the public to a meeting protesting the draft and the Vietnam war.17 This activity was unrelated to the Center's operations.18 Security guards employed by Lloyd Center, who possess full police authority, informed the distributors that they were trespassing and would be arrested if they did not cease handbilling inside the Center.19 The Center is not a company town performing municipal functions as in Marsh v. Alabama.20 The handbilling bore no relation to the Center's purpose unlike the picketing in Logan Valley Plaza.21
Respondents had adequate alternative means to distribute handbills on the public streets and sidewalks surrounding the Center.22
The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not require a privately owned shopping center to permit the distribution of handbills on its property when the handbilling is unrelated to the shopping center's operations.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Douglas, Brennan, And Stewart, Jj.
Justice Marshall dissented on the ground that Lloyd Center is the functional equivalent of a public business district because it spans 50 acres, contains over 60 stores, is open to the public without restriction, and serves as a central gathering place where people shop, meet, and spend time.24 He argued that the majority's distinction based on whether the speech relates directly to the Center's operations lacks constitutional significance.25 The Center already permits other expressive activities such as political speeches by presidential candidates, Veterans Day parades, and solicitations by the Salvation Army and American Legion.26
Marshall concluded that the balance between property rights and free speech must favor allowing peaceful, nondisruptive handbilling inside the Center.27 Public streets and sidewalks do not provide equivalent access to the patrons who remain inside the private malls.28 The Center has effectively assumed the role of a traditional downtown business district.29