Intern. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Rochford

• Decision Date: 21 January 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76 C 1615.,76 C 1615.
• Citation: 425 F. Supp. 734
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., and Govinda Das, on behalf of themselves and all International Society for Krishna Consciousness members, Plaintiffs, v. James R. ROCHFORD, Superintendent of Chicago Police Department, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

425 F. Supp. 734

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., and Govinda Das, on behalf of themselves and all International Society for Krishna Consciousness members, Plaintiffs, v. James R. ROCHFORD, Superintendent of Chicago Police Department, et al., Defendants.

No. 76 C 1615.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

January 21, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Barry A. Fisher, Fleishman, Brown, Weston & Rohde, Beverly Hills, Cal., Edwards, Haney, Singer & Stein, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

William R. Quinlan, Corporation Counsel, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

I

LEIGHTON, District Judge.

This suit seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against enforcement of regulations adopted by the airport commissioner of the city of Chicago. The complaint alleges that because the regulations lack procedures guaranteeing due process, and give airport officials unbridled power to grant or deny permits, they are unconstitutional and abridge rights secured by the First Amendment to the federal constitution. For jurisdiction in this court the suit relies on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3)(4) and prays for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. It is alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. And contending that there is no material issue of fact in the case, plaintiffs, with supporting affidavit, have moved for summary judgment, incorporating by reference a brief filed in support of a motion for preliminary injunction.

Defendants have answered the complaint, and supported by an affidavit, oppose the motion. In a memorandum, they contend that plaintiffs attack the regulations facially and as they are applied in the daily administration of O'Hare Airport. Therefore, defendants insist that there are factual issues to be resolved before the case can be decided. These contentions require this court to determine whether the pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda show that there is no genuine issue concerning any material fact; and whether plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts are as follows.

II

Plaintiff International Society of Krishna Consciousness is a non-profit religious corporation which espouses the views of Krishna Consciousness and maintains temples and schools throughout the world. It requires its devotees to perform a religious ritual called Sankirtan, one consisting, in part, of activities that spread the religion's truths through solicitation of contributions, dissemination of religious tracts, and sale of religious materials. For some time, members of Krishna have performed this ritual in the public areas of O'Hare Airport, an international air transportation complex in Chicago. Govinda Das, whose legal name is Robert H. Lindberg, is an ordained priest of the religion, a vice-president of its Chicago Temple, and performs Sankirtan at O'Hare, a course of conduct he desires to continue in the future. James Rochford is the superintendent of police of the city of Chicago and enforces the regulations in question. William R. Quinlan is the city's corporation counsel and prosecutes those who violate the regulations. The city of Chicago adopted the regulations which plaintiffs allege violate their First Amendment rights.

O'Hare Airport is owned by the city of Chicago, subject to its ordinances, and operated by the department of aviation, an executive arm of the city government established in 1958 by section 8.2-1, chapter 8.2 of its municipal code. The department is headed by a commissioner of aviation who is responsible for the management, control of design, operation and maintenance of all Chicago airports. O'Hare has 72 departure gates that handle, more or less, 1800 flights daily. It employs 33,000 persons; and some 100,000,000 passengers, visitors and employees use its facilities yearly. Over 18,000,000 transit passengers change planes at O'Hare each year. Portions of the airport are leased to airlines and concessionaires. These include lobbies and areas open to the general public without restriction.

Effective March 29, 1976, acting under the authority given him by the city's municipal code, and in consultation with airport officials, the commissioner of aviation adopted regulations for all airports under his jurisdiction. Notices were posted in airport administrative offices and at O'Hare telling all persons desiring to solicit funds or distribute literature at airports to comply with the following rules, a true and correct copy of which was attached by plaintiffs to their complaint and is referred to by defendants in their affidavit opposing summary judgment.

AIRPORT REGULATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Commissioner of the Department of Aviation of the City of Chicago by Chapter 8.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Chicago, and in order to balance the rights of the traveling public and those who have a right to be in public places to publicize their views, the following regulations are adopted, to be effective immediately. These regulations are intended to accomplish goals of:

-assuring fair use of facilities in Chicago's airports by passengers and persons accompanying them, employees, lessees, and persons and groups wishing to publicize their views;

-preventing interference with the right of passengers to free access to the airport travel facilities and the free passage among those facilities;

-discouraging interference with persons who are required to wait in lines;

-preventing interference with hijack and other security measures;

-permitting equitable access among persons and groups desiring to publicize their views.

Persons authorized by law to distribute literature, or solicit contributions may do so only in public areas of Chicago airports, provided that they may not do so in the following areas:

A. All aircraft departure lounges and concourses leading to them including concourses A through K;

B. All concourses leading to the terminal buildings including the rotunda;

C. At, in, at the entrance to, or exit from:

(1) hijack, search, and security areas;

(2) ticket counters;

(3) baggage pickup or collection areas;

(4) washroom areas;

(5) areas leased to concessionaires and other lessees except by permission of such lessee;

(6) elevators, escalators, moving walkways; and

(7) main terminal doors and vestibules.

D. At locations where persons are in line at or before areas described in subparagraph C A. No person shall distribute literature or solicit contributions unless he shall have registered beforehand with the airport manager or his authorized representative for each day such activities are engaged in.

B. Between 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. each day each person who desires to distribute literature or solicit contributions shall register in person with the airport manager or his authorized representative, who shall allot reservations for each day in the sequence each person registers. Each person shall give his name and address as well as the organization or purpose he represents and the terminal in which he will be on that day.

C. Each person registered shall receive from the airport manager or his authorized representative a badge or insignia in a form prescribed by the airport manager. Such badge or insignia shall be valid only for the day issued. It shall be worn at all times by the bearer while at the airport, and in a manner visible to the public. It shall not be transferred to another person, and shall be destroyed by the bearer when he leaves the airport at the end of the day.

A. No person except concessionaires and other lessees as permitted by contract with the City of Chicago shall sell anything for commercial purposes.

B. No person shall make a noise or create other disturbances which interferes with the ability of others to hear public announcements or interferes with the transaction of business with airlines, concessionaires, or lessees.

C. No person shall interfere with the free passage to, or access of, other persons to corridors, entrances, doorways, or offices or airport facilities.

D. No individual shall be solicited by more than one person at a time.

E. No person shall erect a table, chair, or other structure other than in the leased space.

The airport manager of his authorized representative may declare an emergency on account of unusually congested conditions in the airport terminals caused by weather, schedule interruptions, extremely heavy traffic movements or other causes, or on account of emergency security measures. In such case an announcement shall be made. All persons distributing literature or soliciting contributions as permitted under paragraph I and II shall immediately cease such activities for the duration of such emergency.

III

These, then, are the regulations in question. The parties agree to this fact. They also agree that at O'Hare Airport plaintiffs engage only in the ritual they call Sankirtan: the solicitation of contributions, distribution of religious tracts, and the sale of religious materials. But they disagree on the construction of the regulations.

Plaintiffs contend they are unconstitutional, facially and as applied because they lack procedures guaranteeing due process and give airport officials unbridled power to deny permits and thus prevent plaintiffs' enjoyment of their First Amendment rights at O'Hare by the practice of their religious ritual. It should be observed that the contention asserting the regulations are "* * unconstitutional facially * * *" means that a mere reading of them will disclose the claimed defect; while the contention asserting the regulations "* * * are unconstitutional * * * as applied * * *" can mean only their application to the activities in which plaintiffs engage at O'Hare. Bearing directly on this latter meaning, defendants contend that there are material issues of fact to be resolved in this case. But the thrust of their argument is to support the...