Also known as:time, place, and manner regulations · time place manner restrictions · TPM regulations · TPM · time-place-manner · content-neutral regulations
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A content-neutral restriction on when, where, or how protected speech may occur. The government may impose such a regulation if it advances an important interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Cable Must-Carry Mandate
Terra Financial operates a cable system serving several states. A federal rule requires the company to carry local broadcast stations on its basic tier without regard to the content of those stations' programming. Terra Financial sues, claiming the rule displaces its preferred channel lineup. The court applies intermediate scrutiny and upholds the rule because the mandate advances the government's interest in preserving free over-the-air television and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
Adult Theater Zoning Ordinance
Tiana Tan owns an adult theater in downtown Erie. The city enacts an ordinance requiring all such theaters to locate at least 1,000 feet from schools and residences. Tiana Tan challenges the rule as an unconstitutional restriction on expressive conduct. The court upholds the ordinance because it targets the secondary effects of the businesses rather than their message and leaves open ample alternative locations for the speech.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M.529 U.S. 277 (2000)
Airport Leafleting Ban
Tabitha Taylor belongs to a religious group that distributes literature at airports. The Port Authority adopts a rule barring all solicitation and leafleting inside the terminals. Tabitha Taylor sues, arguing the rule violates her First Amendment rights. The court sustains the regulation because the terminals are nonpublic forums and the rule is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (ISKCON) v. Lee505 U.S. 672 (1992)
Residential Picketing Restriction
Tristan Thompson leads a labor union that pickets a city official's home to protest policy decisions. The city enforces an ordinance that prohibits all residential picketing except labor disputes involving the resident's own employer. Tristan Thompson challenges the ordinance. The court strikes it down because the distinction between labor and non-labor picketing is content based and fails to qualify as a valid time, place, or manner regulation.
Carey v. Brown447 U.S. 455 (*1980*)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
How does a court distinguish a valid time, place, or manner regulation from an invalid content-based restriction?+
A regulation is content neutral when it applies without regard to the message conveyed. Courts then apply intermediate scrutiny to determine whether the rule advances an important interest unrelated to suppressing speech and is narrowly tailored without burdening substantially more speech than necessary.
Supporting sources
What level of scrutiny applies to a content-neutral must-carry rule imposed on cable or streaming platforms?+
Intermediate scrutiny applies. The government must show that the rule advances an important interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
Supporting sources
Can a time, place, or manner regulation survive intermediate scrutiny if less restrictive alternatives exist?+
The regulation may still survive if the chosen means are narrowly tailored to the government's interest. Courts do not automatically invalidate a rule merely because another approach might impose a smaller burden.
Supporting sources
Does a regulation that incidentally displaces some private speech necessarily fail as a time, place, or manner restriction?+
No. Incidental displacement is permissible when the rule is content neutral, advances an important non-speech interest, and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve that interest.
Supporting sources
447 U.S. 455 (1980)Constitutional Law
…law). Moreover, we have often declared that "[a] state or municipality may protect individual privacy by enacting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations applicable to all speech irrespective of content." Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville , 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975) (emphasis supplied). See, e. g., Cox v. New Hampshire , 312 U. S. 569…